National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Col. D.K. Kapur vs Klm Northwest Airlines on 30 November, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 4635 of 2009 (From the Order dated 08.09.2009 in First Appeal No. A-2009/294 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) Col. D. K. Kapur Petitioner versus KLM Northwest Airlines Respondent BEFORE: Honble Mr. Anupam Dasgupta Presiding Member For the Petitioner In person For the Respondent Mr. Amir Singh Pasrich, Advocate Dated 30th November 2010 ORDER
Anupam Dasgupta Col.
D.K. Kapur, the petitioner, is an ex-Army officer and a senior citizen. He approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (the District Forum) with a complaint alleging various deficiencies in service on the part of the KLM Northwest Airlines (opposite party OP before the District Forum and respondent before us) during his air journey from Delhi to Seattle, USA via Detroit and claiming compensation. After considering the pleadings, evidence and documents produced before it and hearing the parties, the District Forum found the OP guilty of deficiency in service, viz., inexplicable delay and consequent harassment, in delivery of the complainant/petitioners baggage at Detroit, USA and directed the latter to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of Rs. 10,000/- within 30 days of its order. Dissatisfied, the complainant appealed against the order of the District Forum to the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (the State Commission). By its order dated 08.09.2009, the State Commission confirmed the findings and award of the District Forum. Still unhappy, Col. Kapur has come up with this revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) for enhancement of the compensation, etc., awarded to him. The OP Airlines has, however, not challenged the order of the Fora below.
2. I have heard Col. Kapur and Mr. A.S. Pasrich, Advocate on behalf of the OP/respondent Airlines and carefully considered the orders of the Fora below as well as the material produced before them.
3 (i) The principal allegations of Col. Kapur related to a long delay in the departure and ultimate cancellation of the Airlines flight on which he was booked for his journey Delhi Amsterdam
- Seattle on 24th July 2006; the inconveniences that he underwent at the Hotel Grand, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi where he and other passengers of this flight were put up by the Airlines till the departure of the Airlines next flight (inconveniences like the lights in the Hotel room not working and the Hotel not being prepared to offer him even a cup of tea unless he paid for it, the latter forcing him to go hungry and hence go home at his own cost); he was ultimately given a boarding pass for a journey Delhi Amsterdam Detroit Seattle as against the original routing of Delhi Amsterdam Seattle; the flight Detroit Seattle was a low grade, cheap domestic flight on which he was not served any refreshment as he should have been for an international journey for which he had paid; one of his checked-in pieces of baggage went missing at Detroit to search which he had to spend hours and as a result he could not catch the originally scheduled Detroit - Seattle flight; in his search of his missing baggage at Detroit, no staff of the Airlines helped him; and, finally, when he reached Seattle, his missing baggage could be located only after a three-hour long frantic search by his son, without the assistance of any Airlines staff, because it had been sent by a Detroit Seattle flight different from his.
(ii) During the hearing, Col. Kapurs main arguments in support of his claim for enhanced compensation were two-fold: first, the limits of liability of the respondent Airlines for delayed departure of flights and delayed delivery of checked-in baggage were considerably higher and secondly, in some other cases the State Commission had awarded much higher amounts of compensation for deficiency far less grave than those that he had to suffer.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Pasrich argued that the complaint deserved to be dismissed because the petitioner/complainant had not been able to demonstrate any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Airlines, far less any loss or injury actually caused to him because of his alleged sufferings that could entitle him to compensation under the provisions of section 14 of the Act. The delay and subsequent cancellation of the flight in question on 24th July 2006 and its rescheduled departure the next day were on account of technical snags in the aircraft, which could not be construed, in view of the settled law on the subject, as deficiency in service on the part of the Airlines. Secondly, where the Airlines put up the petitioner and other passengers of the cancelled flight was a five star Hotel in New Delhi. If the petitioner wanted some refreshments or food during his stay at this Hotel, he could have paid for them, as asked by the Hotel staff and sought reimbursement from the Airlines on production of bills. He did not do so and if he chose instead to go home, it could hardly be held as deficiency in service of the respondent Airlines. Thirdly, at no stage did the petitioner object to the flight routing of Delhi Amsterdam Detroit Seattle on 25th July 2006 in lieu of the original routing Delhi Amsterdam Seattle; the former was in any case the earliest set of flights to Seattle according to the Airlines schedule. The flight from Detroit to Seattle on which the petitioner was put was run by a well-established US Airlines, viz., Northwest Airlines. Further, the US laws required that passengers of international flights collect their checked-in baggage at the first point of disembarkation in the USA and accordingly the petitioner had to collect his baggage and board the Northwest Airlines connecting domestic flight from Detroit to Seattle. Though there might have been delay in delivery of the petitioners missing baggage piece, he suffered no loss or injury on that count it was not even his allegation that his baggage was lost or mutilated. Citing several judgments of the Apex Court and this Commission in similar cases, Mr. Pasrich argued that though the Airlines could have challenged the decision of the District Forum on the basis of the said pronouncements on law, it agreed to settle for the amount awarded as a goodwill gesture and the petitioner was wrong in interpreting the Airlines liability clauses he cited because they did not prescribe the floor but the ceilings of liabilities of the Airlines.
5. In my view, the finding of the District Forum on the respondent Airlines deficiency in service in respect of the missing baggage piece of the petitioner at Detroit and finally, Seattle is entirely justified. It would also appear that though the petitioner and other similarly placed passengers were put up on 24th July 2006 in a five star Hotel, there was no prior indication by the Airlines that the passengers would be entitled to food and refreshments on payment and the expenses upto a given monetary ceiling per person would be reimbursed on production of bills. Further, the mental and physical harassment that a passenger, a senior citizen at that, would undergo when he is required, after so many hours of an international air journey, to collect his checked-in baggage at the point of first disembarkation from such a flight in order to board a connecting domestic leg of the routing to the final destination and finds one of the checked-in baggage pieces missing, with no one from the international or the partner air carrier available to lift the proverbial little finger to help him, would certainly amount to injury within the meaning of the term under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act, entitling him to compensation. It is also not necessary to reproduce here the Apex Courts settled interpretation of the term compensation under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act, as enunciated in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v Balbir Singh [(2004) 5 SCC 65, para. 6]. In short, the petitioner is entitled, in the given facts and circumstances, to a reasonable compensation for the obvious deficiencies in service on the part of the respondent Airlines. On the other hand, Mr. Pasrich is right that the petitioners interpretation of the clauses relating to the Airlines limits of liability in support of his claim for compensation is misplaced and the claim grossly exaggerated. The ends of justice would be, in my view, adequately met in this case if the respondent Airlines is directed to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner/complainant.
6. The revision petition is thus allowed in part and the order of the State Commission is modified to the extent that the respondent Airlines shall pay to the petitioner/complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in all, within four weeks of the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
[ANUPAM DASGUPTA]