State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ravi Poddar vs M/S. King Fisher Airlines on 26 November, 2009
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. FA/320/2009 DATE OF FILING: 26.8.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 26.11.2009 APPELLANT Ravi Poddar 41, Hazra Road Kolkata 700 019 RESPONDENTS M/s. King Fisher Airlines 4, Bankshall Street Kolkata 700 001 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MRS. S. MAJUMDER FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. S.K. Basu, Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mrs. K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT This appeal was filed challenging order dated 23.7.09 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-II in C.C. No.107/2008 whereby the complaint was allowed directing the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing harassment, mental agony and dragging him to the Forum.
The case made out by the complainant in the complaint is that the petitioner is an agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India and is also a member of Chairmans Club of LICI. Accordingly the petitioner is required to attend convention/conference organized by the Chairmans Club at different places of India. The petitioner purchased one air ticket to travel from Kolkata to Indore from OP3 travel agent of OP1/King Fisher Airlines on 22.10.07 as a confirmed ticket for journey on 09.12.07 on payment of Rs.17,085/- for the to and fro journey.
On reaching the check-in-counter of the Airport on 09.12.07 at 4:30 A.M. the petitioner was asked by the staff of the airlines for allowing the petitioner to board the flight as the boarding card was not issued inspite of petitioner having confirmed ticket. The petitioner was required to attend Chairmans Club convention for four days at Indore. As the petitioner was not allowed to take the flight, he sent a legal notice and ultimately filed the complaint case against the airlines as also the travel agent praying for Rs.3 lacs as compensation for mental agony etc. Rs.2 lacs for loss of prestige/reputation and interest @ 10% per annum.
Heard Mr. S. K. Basu, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant who preferred the appeal for enhancement for the financial relief granted by the Forum. It is contended by the appellant that though he was holding confirmed ticket for to and fro journey on payment of full consideration he could not avail the journey and thereby was deprived of attending the convention of the Chairmans Club and, therefore, is entitled to compensation. It is also contended by Mr. Basu that the Airlines Company or the Travel Agent did not even care to give intimation of such cancellation of the tickets before the journey. It is argued that compensation of Rs.20,000/- in such facts is absolutely meagre and should be enhanced when deficiency in service has been already found and no appeal has been preferred by the OPs.
Mrs. K. Mukhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent contended that in the written version filed by OP1 and 2 while giving parawise reply in paragraph 4 it has been stated that the reservations software had been developed in such a fashion that whenever anyone books a ticket the reservation system automatically asks for the contact number and in the present case the mobile no. of the travel agent was fed in the reservation system. It is further stated that in the aircraft which was detailed to operate flight No. IT 2551 the maximum sitting capacity provided was of 66 passengers but in order to meet the requirement of diversion and holding the flight in air, the requirement of carrying reserve fuel was enhanced and as such the sitting capacity of the aircraft was reduced from 66 to 58. But passengers booked in flight No.IT2551 were accommodated in another flight No. IT 412 and intimation of the same was given to all concerned passengers through the contact numbers available in the data base. Relying on the aforesaid it is contended by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents that there was no deficiency in service. It is further contended that convention was scheduled on 11.12.07 and, therefore, refusal to petitioner on 09.12.07 did not amount to any deficiency in service.
After considering the above contentions and perusing the materials on record I find that the fact that the petitioner was holding a confirmed ticket for journey from Kolkata to Indore on 09.12.07 by IT 2551 of King Fisher Airlines, has not been disputed. The reason for refusing him boarding ticket for the flight has been vaguely stated as requirement of diversion and carrying enhanced reserve fuel. I find that the OPs did not disclose what was the requirement of diversion, what was the extent of diversion and what extra amount of fuel had to be carried. No record or any material in support of such contention has been disclosed. Even no particulars of extent of diversion and reason for diversion has been stated by the OPs. Moreover when admittedly the petitioner booked his ticket long before the date of journey, while reducing the sitting capacity of the aircraft the passengers who booked subsequent to petitioner, could have been refused journey but no reason has been disclosed as to why any such assessment was not made and how the petitioner was chosen as the person to be thrown away.
As regards intimation either the version of the airlines or the version of the travel agent is not available with proof that the petitioners or their alleged group leader was intimated well ahead. No disclosure has been made as to decision of reducing the sitting capacity and intimation to the travel agent and, therefore, this contention of the OPs also is not accepted. The OPs also failed to prove booking in alternative flight and intimation thereof to the complainant.
Moreover the finding of deficiency in service by the Forum below has not been challenged by the OPs in any proceeding.
Therefore, I affirm the finding of deficiency in service of the OPs.
Then comes the requirement of deciding the quantum of compensation. The case of the complainant is that he reported on the date of journey at 4:30 A.M. at the check-in-counter of the Airport. This has not been denied by the OPs. Admittedly the petitioner was scheduled to attend convention of the Chairmans Club of which petitioner is a member. It was a four-day long convention and was relevant for the purpose of his work place.
Petitioner has pleaded loss of reputation and prestige amongst his colleagues and the extent of expectations in paragraph 5 of the complaint. It is true that such mental agony during the period the petitioner was deprived of the flight attending the airport at 4:30 A.M. in the morning but in my opinion a compensation of Rs.30,000/- will be proportionate to the sufferings by the petitioner on the materials available on record.
Moreover, admittedly the petitioner has received the refund for the return journey ticket and, therefore, he has not made any claim for the same but admittedly the price of the onward journey from Kolkata to Indore has not been paid by the OP2 to the complainant.
Therefore, the impugned order is modified directing the OPs 1 & 2 to pay Rs.8,542/- being the half of total Rs.17,085/- for the journey both ways, compensation of Rs.30,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner within 60 days from the date of this order and in case of default the petitioner will be entitled to recover the said amount from the OPs in accordance with law along with interest @ 9% per annum. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(S. Majumder) (Justice A. Chakrabarti) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT