State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Air India Limited vs Inder Mohan Taneja on 19 March, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 19.03.2010 FIRST APPEAL NO.2009/39 (Arising out of Order dated 03.11.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum( New Delhi) Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.824/2006) 1. Air India Limited .. Appellant/Opposite Party 1, Scindia House, through Ms. Shweta, Connaught Place, Janpath advocate. New Delhi Through its Customer Relation Manager NI Mr. Sunita Dhindsa, 2. Air India Limited, Hansalya Building, 5th Floor, 5, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Versus 1. Sh. Inder Mohan Taneja . Respondent/Complainant. S/o Late Sh. S.L. Taneja, in person B-9, Greater Kailash Enclave -11, New Delhi Presently at: 120/3, Silver Oak Apartments, DLF Phase-I, Gurgaon -122002 2. Mrs. Champa Taneja, W/o Sh. Inder Mohan Taneja, 120/3, Silver Oak Apartments, DLF Phase-I, Gurgaon -122002 CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President Sh. M.L. Sahni Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi , President(ORAL)
1. Short facts of the case are that the complainant alongwith his wife had return tickets of the OP appellant Air India from London Heathrow Airport to Delhi and the flight was to take off on 09.07.2005 at 19.30 hours when the complainants were getting ready at their place of stay for going to the Airport, OPs office informed them that the flight is delayed and they will be informed accordingly, which the OP did not. Complainants tried to contact OP authorities but in vain. The complainants therefore went to the Airport and found that the flight had been cancelled and will take off the next day on 10.07.2005 at 11.00 AM as per schedule. They again reached the Airport on 10.07.2005 at 8.00 AM and when they reached the boarding lounge, they were informed that the flight is delayed, which will now take off at 3.00 P.M., when they were again informed, that the flight was cancelled and will take off the next day on 11.07.2005 at 9.00 AM. The complainants were thereafter taken away in company of about 80 passengers, by a bus having capacity of 40 passengers to a hotel where OP did not even handed over their baggage and for that reason, they had to sleep with the clothes they were already wearing upon. On 11.07.2005, there was no information about the departure of the flight and ultimately the flight could take off at 10.00 P.M. to Delhi. The complainants after reaching Delhi gave notice to the OP authorities for giving them compensation in this regard and the OP paid each of the complainants Rs.15200/- i.e. Rs.11400/- towards fare and Rs.3800/- as compensation for the delayed flight. Complainants were dissatisfied with the said payment, and they, therefore filed a complaint before District Forum with the following prayers:
(i) The balance amount of Rs.10,000/- in the name of Mr. Inder Mohan Taneja.
(ii) Rs.40,000/- in the name of Mrs. Champa Taneja.
(iii) Rs.50,000/- being the damages in loss of business and reputation
(iv) Rs.10,000/- legal fees including legal notice.
(v) Interest @24% p.a. from the date of issue of part payment cheque i.e. 03.08.2005 when the balance amount was demanded till the date of disbursement of the amount.
2. OP opposed the claim by filing written statement and pleaded that the OP immediately paid compensation for delay flight to the complainants as permissible under the rules.
3. The District Forum after considering evidence and hearing both the parties passed the following award in favour of the complainants and against the OP:-
(i) OP will pay the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- in the name of Mr. Inder Mohan Taneja, Rs.40,000/- in the name of Mrs. Champa Taneja to the complainant.
(ii) OP will pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing him mental agony, harassment and for deficiency in service.
(iii) OP will pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
4. That is what brings the appellant/OP in appeal here.
5. We have heard Ms. Shweta, counsel for the appellant and Sh. Inder Mohan Taneja, Advocate for himself and his wife respondent No.2.
6. Counsel for the appellant has referred to answer to question No.19 Do Airlines have compensation obligation in the case of long delays?, which is as below, under Regulation 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Counsel of 11.02.2004:-
No. However, if flight is expected to be delayed by more than two, three or four hours as applicable, the passengers concerned are entitled to receive information on their rights and proper assistance (meals, refreshment, communication facilities and if appropriate hotel accommodation) However, without prejudice to compensation possibilities on the basis of national civil law no financial compensation is to be paid for delays under the Regulation.
With regard to a possible refund of ticket (which is different from compensation) the Regulation provides for this kind of reimbursement where stranded passengers do not wish to continue their journey at a delay for more than five hours and are entitled under the Regulation, to cancel their flight on their own initiate and to claim a refund on ticket not used. When expecting such a long delay, the airlines has to propose this option to the passengers concerned.
7. In the first instance it may be mentioned that these European origin rules cannot be held applicable in India. Despite it will be noted that the Rule postulates information being given to the passengers about the flight. In this case no information was conveyed to the complainant after the initial information about the flight being delayed for hours together and subsequent enquiry failed to yield any result in consequence whereof the complainant had to go to Airport. There was as such violation of rule itself as no proper information was given. Even the arrangements of the passengers for transport from the Airport back to the hotel were not appropriate and were extremely uncomfortable. A very uncomfortable feature was that the baggage of the complainant was not returned to them and they suffered great inconvenience at the hotel in its absence thereof. In view of all these circumstances it is manifest that the Airlines functionaries acted in a very discourteous and negligent manner, in consequence whereof, the complainants were put to great hardship and inconvenience.
8. Such inconvenience and misery caused by the misconduct and deficiency in service on the part of the Airlines, call for very substantial compensation we would say that the compensation granted by the District Forum is very much on the lower side.
9. Appeal dismissed.
10. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
Announced on 19th day of March 2010.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (M.L. Sahni) Member Tri