State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Kingfisher Airlines Limited vs Nitish Arora on 17 July, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1688 OF 2011
Date of Institution: 18.11.2011
Date of Decision: 17.7.2012
M/s Kingfisher Airlines Limited, Kingfisher House, Western Express
Highway, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400099.
Shown in the complaint as Registered Office at 12th Floor, UB Tower, UP
City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001. Represented by its:
Mr. A. Hamid, DGM-Legal.
.....Appellants
VERSUS
1. Nitish Arora son of Sh. Anant Kumar Arora, Advocate, House No.
263, GTB Nagar, Jalandhar.
2. Jang Travels (Regd.), Near Skylark Hotel, Jalandhar City.
.....Respondents
First Appeal under Section 15 and 17
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
against the order dated 17.8.2011
passed by the District Consumer
Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice, S.N. Aggarwal, President
Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member
Present:
For the appellants : Sh. Y.S. Dhilon, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. A.K. Arora, Advocate with
Sh. Nitish Arora, in person
For the respondent No. 2 : Ex-parte
First Appeal No. 1688 of 2011 Page 2 of 11
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This is an appeal against the order dated 17.8.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called as "District Forum") vide which the complaint of the complainant- respondent (hereinafter called as "respondent") was partially allowed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the business of air travels under the name and style of Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. having their Registered Office at Bangalore and respondent No. 2 is a travel agency of the appellants at Jalandhar who booked tickets on behalf of the appellants at Jalandhar under the name and style of Jang Travels.
3. It was pleaded by the respondent that he approached the respondent No. 2 for booking 4 tickets for himself, his father Mr. Anat Kumar Arora, his mother Mrs. Alka Arora and his sister Diksha Arora for the flight of the appellants from Delhi to Mangalore via Mumbai, which was scheduled to depart at 10:05 hrs from Delhi on 25th of June, 2010 and return tickets for journey from Mangalore to Delhi via Mumbai scheduled to depart at 10:45 hrs from Mangalore on 3rd of July, 2010. The respondent received an E- mail from "[email protected]" alongwith the attachment of booking details of four persons i.e. respondent and his family members on 22nd of June, 2010 on the email address given by the respondent at the time of booking. The E-mail contained itinerary details of confirmed booking on 25th of June, 2010 from Delhi to Mumbai and Mumbai to Mangalore scheduled to depart from Delhi at 10:05 hrs and return journey on 3rd of July, 2010 from Mangalore to Mumbai and Mumbai to Delhi scheduled to depart from Mangalore at 10:45 hrs reaching Delhi Airport at 16:40 hrs. The respondent alongwith his family members traveled on 25th of June, First Appeal No. 1688 of 2011 Page 3 of 11 2010 from Delhi to Mangalore as per schedule and information available in the itinerary.
4. It was pleaded that for the return journey, the respondent alongwith his family members reached Mangalore Airport from Manipal (60 kms. from Mangalore Airport where they were staying) by hiring a taxy on 3rd of July, 2010 for going back to Delhi at 8:30 hrs to board the flight which was scheduled to depart at 10:45 hrs on 3rd of July, 2010 i.e. flight No. IT3143 Mangalore to Mumbai. When the respondent contacted the help desk of the appellants at Mangalore Airport, he was surprised to know that the flight No. IT3143 no longer operated between the Mangalore-Mumbai Sector and on further checking the status of the flight on the website, the respondent was shocked to see that the flight No. IT3143, infact, was operating from Mumbai to Kochi. It was further alleged that the help desk of the appellants informed him that there was no flight operating in the morning from Mangalore to Mumbai and that only one flight of the appellants which operates between Mangalore to Mumbai with connecting flight to Delhi departs from Mangalore Airport at 17:10 hrs and arrives New Delhi at 23:00 hrs. The respondent was further informed that he and his family members had already been adjusted in the evening flight No. IT3146 of the appellants, scheduled to depart at 17:10 hrs with onward connecting flight from Mumbai to Delhi in flight No. IT313, which was scheduled to depart from Mumbai at 20:45 hrs. The respondent was further informed by the help desk that the change in itinerary had already been emailed to the respondent. When the respondent checked his mail, it transpired that new itinerary was emailed to him at 7:58 hrs on 3rd of July, 2010 itself i.e. on the date of return journey just two hours prior to flight. First Appeal No. 1688 of 2011 Page 4 of 11
5. It was further pleaded that the respondent waited all day long at Mangalore Airport from 8:30 hrs to 18:00 hrs because flight was delayed and reached the Delhi at 23:45 hrs. On reaching Delhi Airport at about 12:00 PM (mid-night), the respondent and his family searched for hotel for staying during the night near the Airport but there was no availability of rooms because of weekend and because it was late in the night. Thereafter, the respondent and his family rushed to New Delhi Railway Station to catch the train to their hometown but there was no train available. To add to their mental agony, there was no availability of hotel accommodation around New Delhi Railway Station. The respondent and his family, being unknown to the city, spent the whole night in the waiting room of the New Delhi Railway Station to catch train to their hometown at about 7:20 hrs on 4th of July, 2010 in the morning.
6. Hence the complaint before the District Forum seeking damages of Rs. 2.0 lacs on account of providing deficient service and also for indulging in unfair trade practices. In addition, cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 15,000/- was also prayed.
7. Upon notice, the appellants filed a written statement in which it was pleaded that the respondent, alongwith his companion passengers, had safely and comfortably traveled by the Airlines of the appellants and, as such, they had availed the services of the appellants against the consideration paid by them. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service nor there was unfair trade practice. It was also pleaded that no document was produced by the respondent to support his case for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction. It was stated that as per respondent's PNR No. "LF JNBN", the tickets were booked through Richi Travels, which was a necessary party but it had not been impleaded. The details of the itinerary First Appeal No. 1688 of 2011 Page 5 of 11 supplied to the respondent was, however, admitted being a subject matter of record.
8. It was further pleaded that due to operational reasons flight No. IT3143 was changed to IT3146 w.e.f. 1st of July, 2010 to 31st of August, 2010 and the departure time was also changed from 10:45 hrs to 17:10 hrs. A copy of the changed schedule was sent to the SPACECONTROL on 22.6.2010 wherein the flight No. IT3143 was shown at second page of Annexure RW-I. It was further stated that the pre-intimation of the aforesaid changed schedule was given to all the passengers booked in the said flight and the respondent was also called thrice on mobile No. 9815843388 available in the PNR history and every time the said mobile number was not reachable.
9. It was further pleaded that the guests are always advised to check the timings of the flights with the Call Centre at least 6 hours prior to the scheduled departure time, however, in the present case, the respondent did not do the same. Had he checked the flight timings, he would have easily come to know about the change in schedule. It was also pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the carriage, the appellants can change the schedule time of flight which includes preponing the departure time of the flight without prior notice or intimation to the passenger. Even though the appellants were not bound to intimate the change in the flight departure timing to the passenger yet as a courtesy the Call Centre of the appellants do try to inform the passengers about any change or cancellation on the contact numbers provided by the respondent/his travel agent regarding the re-scheduling of flight No. IT3143. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
10. The respondent No. 2 also filed a separate written statement in which it was admitted that he booked tickets for the respondent and his First Appeal No. 1688 of 2011 Page 6 of 11 family members, however, it was pleaded that the tickets were booked because at the time of booking, the flight IT3143 was operational and was scheduled to depart at 10:45 hrs on 3rd July, of 2010 from Mangalore to Mumbai alongwith connecting flight from Mumbai to Delhi IT307 which was scheduled to arrive at Delhi at 16:24 hrs on 3rd of July, 2010.
11. It was further pleaded that the respondent was not entitled to any damages because the respondent No. 2 had booked the air tickets as per schedule provided to him by the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
12. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
13. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, partially allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellants and the respondent No. 2 to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental tension and agony and also Rs. 5,000/- as costs of litigation jointly and severally within a period of one month and in case of failure to comply with the order then 9% penal interest will be charged from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
14. Hence the present appeal.
15. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent and his companion passengers had traveled comfortably and availed the services of the appellants against the consideration paid by them. As far as the change in flight timings are concerned, it was the responsibility of the respondent to provide a contact number on which contact could be established.
16. It was further submitted that the respondent had admitted in his complaint that the E-mail dated 3rd July, 2010, sent by the appellants at 7:58AM, was received by him. Thus, he was intimated about the change in First Appeal No. 1688 of 2011 Page 7 of 11 flight schedule. As such, there was no lapse on the part of the appellants. It was also submitted that as per PNR No. "LF JNBN", the tickets were not booked through the respondent No. 2 but the same were booked through Richi Travels, which was a necessary party but the respondent had not made the said agency a party in the present complaint.
17. It was further submitted that the respondent No. 2 was not an authorized agent of the appellants. Since, the respondent and his family members were re-allocated in the flight No. IT3146 on the same day and that they availed the said re-allocation without any protest and with their free consent, therefore, the present complaint was an after thought and the same was filed with the intention of wrongful gains at the costs of the appellants. Acceptance of the appeal was prayed.
18. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed.
19. Submissions have been considered. Record has been perused.
20. The admitted facts of the case are that the respondent booked 4 number of tickets for air travel through Airlines of the appellants for their journey from Delhi to Mumbai through flight No. IT306 leaving Delhi at 10:05 hrs on 25th of June, 2010 with a connecting flight from Mumbai to Mangalore through flight No. IT3145 reaching Mangalore at 16:35 hrs on 25th of June, 2010. Similarly, he booked tickets for return journey scheduled for 3rd of July, 2010 through flight No. IT3143 leaving Mangalore at 10:45 hrs for Mumbai with connecting flight No. IT307 from Mumbai to Delhi reaching Delhi at 16:40 hrs on 3rd July 2010 itself. This itinerary was confirmed to the respondent on June 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM through E-mail issued by "[email protected]" at the email address of the respondent. The respondent traveled on 25.6.2010 to Mangalore via First Appeal No. 1688 of 2011 Page 8 of 11 Mumbai as per schedule. However, during return journey when the respondent, alongwith his family members, reached the Mangalore Airport at about 8:30 AM just two hours before the scheduled departure of the flight No. IT3143 from Mangalore to Mumbai, he was informed by the help desk of the appellants that the flight No. IT3143 was not in operation between Mangalore and Mumbai w.e.f. 1st of July, 2010. He and his family members were adjusted in the evening flight No. IT3146, which was scheduled to depart at 17:10 hrs with connecting flight from Mumbai to Delhi through flight No. IT313. This change in itinerary of the respondent was conveyed to the respondent by the appellants through E-mail issued at 7:58 hrs on 3rd of July, 2010 itself i.e. on the date of return journey.
21. Even though the appellants have contended that all the passengers, including the respondent, was contacted on the telephone number given by the respondent in the PNR details but he could not be contacted on the same. No date and time of the alleged attempts to contact the respondent has been specified. The appellants have also proved on record a document as Ex. O-3 to support that they tried to intimate respondent earlier. But, scrutiny of this document reveals that it is an internal correspondence between Mr. Mohammed, Saleem KFA/BLR/Call Centre and Mr. Vishwakarma, Deviprasad KFA/BOM and cannot be taken as a proof that the appellants actually tried to contact the respondent.
22. The appellants have contended that the tickets were booked through Richi Travels and not through the respondent No. 2 as alleged by the respondent and the same has not been made the party. The respondent No. 2, however, has categorically admitted in his written statement that the tickets were booked by him on behalf of the appellants and further that on that date the flight No. IT3143 was in operation and no intimation was First Appeal No. 1688 of 2011 Page 9 of 11 available with him regarding any proposed change in schedule of the flights w.e.f. 1st of July, 2010.
23. The respondent has proved on record the E-mail alongwith itinerary schedule issued by "[email protected]" addressed to the respondent as Ex. C-1, perusal of which reveals that the intimation regarding the confirmed tickets for the onward and return journey were conveyed by the appellants on 22.6.2010 at 12:59 PM. The respondent has further proved an E-mail issued by [email protected] received by him on 3rd of July, 2010 at 7:58 AM as Ex. C-3, which states that the return flight from Mangalore was changed from IT3143 to IT3146. It is thus evident that intimation regarding change in itinerary was provided to the respondent at the 11th hour i.e. on the date of journey itself when he had already reached the Mangalore Airport for boarding the flight No. IT3143 scheduled to depart at 10:45 hrs. No other document has been placed on record to prove that any effort was made to convey to the respondent regarding the change in itinerary.
24. The appellants have proved on record a document as Ex. O-2 to show that the flight No. IT3143 from Mangalore to Mumbai was changed with flight No. IT3146 w.e.f. 1.7.2010. The scrutiny of this document reveals that it is a pre-intimation from Crasto, Aaron KFA/BOM to SPACECONTROL and this document was sent on 22.6.2010 at 14:54 hrs. Thus, the change in the flight schedule was circulated on 22.6.2010 i.e. the date on which the booking for the onward as well as return journey of the respondent was booked by respondent No. 2. It is an admitted fact that the appellants were having the email address of the respondent, but they did not bother to inform the change in the flight schedule immediately on 22.6.2010 itself but instead actual intimation regarding the said change was First Appeal No. 1688 of 2011 Page 10 of 11 conveyed almost 11 days thereafter, when the respondent had already left for boarding the flight No. IT3143. Had the appellants sent this E-mail well in advance, the respondent could have rescheduled his plans and not have suffered any mental or physical harassment. This intimation could very easily be sent to the respondent even prior to start of his onward journey from Delhi to Mangalore on 25.6.2010. The fact regarding the change in flight and its time was fist time conveyed by the help desk of the appellants at the 11th hour when the respondent had already reached the Airport. It was not a case of sudden change in flight schedule which can be attributed to the reasons beyond the control of the appellants. In fact, it is a case of sheer negligence on the part of the appellants because they miserably failed to convey to the respondent in time the change in schedule which was finalized 11 days before the actual date of return journey. It clearly amounts to deficiency in service which resulted into physical and mental harassment to the respondent.
25. In view of the above discussions and findings, we find no merit in the appeal of the appellants and the same is dismissed and the impugned order of the learned District Forum is upheld.
26. The appellants have deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 18.11.2011. This amount of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
27. The interest on the amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall stop running with effect from the date the appellants had deposited the same in this Commission. Interest on this amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be what has First Appeal No. 1688 of 2011 Page 11 of 11 accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank.
28. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent immediately.
29. The arguments were heard on 10.7.2012 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
30. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER July 17, 2012 VINAY