State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurbachan Singh Madpuri vs Virgin Atlantic Airlines on 1 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 226 of 2012 Date of Institution : 03.07.2012 Date of Decision : 01.10.2012 Gurbachan Singh Madpuri, r/o H.No. 171-A, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh. Appellant/complainant V e r s u s [1] Virgin Atlantic Airlines, through their Booking Agent, M/s R.S. Communications, Shop No. 314, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh. 2nd Address - Virgin Atlantic Airlines through Mr. Stephen King, General Manager - India and Authorized Signatory, Terminal No.3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. [2] M/s R.S. Communications, Shop No. 314, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh, authorized booking agents of Virgin Atlantic Airlines. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. S.M. Bhatia, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rajinder Singh Raj, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Vijay Kumar, Sales Services Manager for respondent No.1 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Proprietor of respondent No.2, in person.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.05.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed Opposite Party No.1, as under:-
In these circumstances, the allegations of the Complainant with regard to his manhandling and not being properly guided or helped at the Airport, by the ground staff of Opposite Party No. 1, succeed against the Opposite Party No.1. Thus finding definite deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1, the present complaint deserves to succeed qua it. Hence, we allow the present complaint against Opposite Party No. 1 and direct it to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing agony and harassment to the Complainant.
The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of the institution of this complaint i.e. this order 02.09.2011, till it is paid.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is a senior citizen, aged about 69 years. He got booked the air ticket Annexure C-1, in the Airlines of Opposite Party No.1, from New Delhi to New York and back, through its authorized booking Agent i.e. Opposite Party No.2, on payment of Rs.60,000/-. The flight was to take off from New Delhi on 12.04.2011. The complainant reached New Delhi International Airport, in time, on 12.4.2011, but the staff of Opposite Party No. 1 was not adequate, and, as such, it delayed the issuance of boarding pass to him. It was stated that there was rush at the immigration counters, due to non-functioning of a few of them. It was further stated that the complainant, approached the desk staff of Opposite Party No.1, at the Airport, to lend him help, but no help was provided to him. Instead, the complainant was told to contact the ground Staff, posted at the Airport. The complainant failed to locate any ground staff, which could help him. In all this confusion, the complainant missed the flight, due to non-cooperation and mis-management of the Staff of Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that the complainant, approached the lady Manager of Opposite Party No.1, at the Airport, and requested to arrange for accommodation, and also to adjust him, in the next available flight, so that he could reach his destination, without further delay. The complainant was told that any change, in the ticket, could only be effected, at the end of Opposite Party No. 2, at Chandigarh. It was further stated that, at that point of time, the boarding pass of the complainant was also snatched by the aforesaid lady Manager of Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that even abusive language was used against the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant, felt insulted, by the rude behavior of the lady Manager.
3. It was further stated that the complainant, left with no other alternative, hired a taxi, for his journey to Chandigarh, and back to New Delhi, with a view to manage a confirmed ticket, for 13.4.2011, from Opposite Party No.2, and for that ticket, he had to pay an extra amount of Rs.5,400/-. It was further stated that the complainant spent Rs.4,800/- (infact Rs.4,840/-) and Rs.4,600/-, respectively, for his two-way-journey, from Delhi to Chandigarh and back vide taxi bills Annexures C-2 and C-3. It was further stated that the complainant, thus, suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment at the hands of the staff of Opposite Party No.1, without his fault. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were many a time, asked to pay compensation, to the complainant, for mental agony and physical harassment, as also deficiency, in rendering service, but to no avail. A legal notice dated 4.8.2011 Annexure C-4, through Registered Post, receipt of which is Annexure C-5, was also served upon the Opposite Parties, but no reply was received. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.5,400/-, paid on account of change of date, in the ticket; pay an amount of Rs.9,400/-, incurred on account of hiring of taxi; and pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-, as compensation, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, with interest @ 18% p.a., on the aforesaid amounts, till realization.
4. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, pleaded that the complainant did not have any right to cause hinderance, in safeguarding security, pertaining to the cause of general public, as well as its security personnel. It was stated that the complainant was off laid, on account of security reasons, since he did not reach the departure gate for boarding the flight, despite sufficient time, at his disposal, for immigration clearance. It was further stated that continuous announcements, were made in his name, at the immigration, as well as boarding gate. It was denied that the complainant was mishandled, by the staff of Opposite Party No.1. It was also denied that he was not provided any help, by the staff of Opposite Party No.1, at the Airport. It was also denied that his boarding pass was snatched by a lady Manager of Opposite Party No.1. It was also denied that abusive language, was used against him, by the staff of Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that since the complainant himself, was at fault, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that, no mental agony and physical harassment was caused to the complainant, at the hands of the staff of Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that all other passengers, who had proper boarding passes, had gone through all the areas, and boarded the Aircraft, without any mismanagement, on the part of the staff of Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that since the complainant did not report, at the departure gate, and, was, thus, off loaded from the system, at 13.12 hours, i.e. only three minutes, before the departure of flight, whereas, a passenger needed to be at the departure gate, 30 minutes before the departure of flight. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, pleaded that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on its part, as alleged by the complainant. It was stated that the change of date, in the ticket, from 12.04.2011 to 13.04.2011, was made on the instructions of the complainant, who was at Delhi, at the relevant point of time. It was denied that Opposite Party No.2, was the booking Agent of Opposite Party No.1. It was admitted that a sum of Rs.5,400/- was charged by Opposite Party No.2, for change of date in the ticket, from 12.04.2011 to 13.04.2011, which was according to the normal business practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After filing the written statement and affidavit by way of evidence, by the Proprietor of Opposite Party No.2, he did not appear in the complaint. Opposite Party No.2, was accordingly, proceeded against ex-parte by the District Forum, vide order dated 30.01.2012.
8. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, authorized Agent for Opposite Party No.1, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
9. Feeling aggrieved, against the inadequate compensation, awarded to the appellant/complainant, the instant appeal, has been filed by him.
10. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, Sales Services Manager of Respondent No.1, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, including the written arguments of respondent no.1, carefully.
11. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that for no fault of the appellant, he was caused a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, and was also put to financial loss, by the staff of Opposite Party No.1. He further submitted that since the boarding pass, had already been issued to the complainant, he knew as to what formalities were to be completed i.e. security checks, immigration clearance etc., before reaching the departure gate, from where the flight was to take off. He further submitted that it could not be imagined that a person, who had all the way gone to the Airport, for taking the flight, for which he had got booked the ticket, would not get the formalities, referred to above, completed, much in advance of the departure of the flight. He further submitted that the boarding pass of the complainant was snatched by a lady Manager, of Opposite Party No.1, and abusive language was used against him. He further submitted that even all the counters were not working, as a result whereof, a lot of inconvenience was caused to the complainant and no help was provided to him. He further submitted that, on account of this reason, the complainant had missed his flight and had to spend a sum of Rs.4,840/- and Rs.4,600/-, respectively, for coming back to Chandigarh, on 12.04.2011, for change of date in the ticket, from Opposite Party No.2, and going back to Delhi, on 13.04.2011, for taking another flight. He further submitted that even for change of date of flight, he had to spend Rs.5,400/- extra. He further submitted that a senior citizen, aged about 69 years, who was caused mental agony and physical harassment, as also made to suffer financial loss, was required to be compensated adequately, but the District Forum granted only meagre compensation. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified, to this extent, and the compensation be enhanced.
12. On the other hand, the Sales Services Manager of Opposite Party No.1, submitted that the allegations, contained in the complaint, were totally false. He further submitted that since the boarding pass was issued to the complainant, in time, there was no reason, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, not to allow him to board the flight, had he reached the departure gate, in time. He further submitted that it was the complainant, who disappeared somewhere, after the issuance of boarding pass to him, and, as such, could not undergo security checks, in time, nor could report at the departure gate, at least 30 minutes before the flight was to take off. He further submitted that announcements were made, in the name of the complainant, a number of times, but he did not reach the departure gate, as a result whereof, his baggage was off loaded and the flight took off. He further submitted that it was, on account of the fault of the complainant, that he could not board the flight, in time. He further submitted that neither mental agony, nor physical harassment was caused to the complainant, nor his boarding pass was snatched, by the lady Manager, aforesaid, nor abusive language was used against him, by the staff of Opposite Party No.1.
13. Admittedly, the complainant got booked the air ticket Annexure C-1, in the Airlines of Opposite Party No.1, from New Delhi to New York and back, through its authorized booking Agent i.e. Opposite Party No.2, on payment of Rs.60,000/-, and the flight was to take off from International Airport, New Delhi on 12.04.2011. The complainant has detailed the mode and manner, in the complaint, in which a lot of mental agony and physical harassment was caused to him, as also financial loss, was suffered by him, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the staff of Opposite Party No.1. Those allegations were duly supported by him, through his affidavit, which was furnished by way of evidence. The complainant is a senior citizen, aged about 69 years. Had he not been abused and boarding pass been not snatched from him, by a lady Manager of Opposite Party No.1, he would not have made such allegations, against her. It was the complainant, who suffered all the mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, at the hands of the staff of Opposite Party No.1, and, he could be said to be the best witness, to depose with regard to the same. It could not be imagined, that a person, who was issued the boarding pass, and reported at the Airport, for taking flight on 12.04.2011, would not report at the departure gate, in time, after undergoing the necessary security checks and completing the other formalities. To rebut the allegations, made by the complainant, and duly supported by him, through his detailed affidavit, no evidence was led by Opposite Party No.1. The written version of Opposite Party No.1, is only supported by a short affidavit of Stephen King, General Manager of Opposite Party No.1, who was not supposed to be present at the time, when the incident, as alleged by the complainant, in the complaint, took place. Even otherwise, the short affidavit is not admissible into evidence, as would be discussed hereinafter.
14. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the proceedings before the Consumer Fora, under the Act, are summary in nature. The Consumer Fora is not required to go into the technicalities, while deciding the complaint. In other words, the proceedings before the Consumer Fora, in a complaint, are unfettered by technicalities, as envisaged by the Evidence Act. However, at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that the complainant and the Opposite Parties, are required to file their affidavits, by way of evidence, in support of the averments, contained in the complaint, and the written reply. The affidavits, so filed, must be, in accordance with the provisions of law, and only then the same can be read into evidence, for deciding the complaint. In the instant case, no doubt, in the written version, Opposite Party No.1 stated that it was on account of the fault of the complainant, that he could not board the flight, in time, and neither any mental agony and physical harassment was caused to him, nor his boarding pass was snatched, nor abusive language was used against him, by its staff. However, in support of the averments, contained in the written version, it only filed a short affidavit, of Stephen King, General Manager, aforesaid, to the effect, that the contents of the accompanying reply on its behalf, were true and correct. Such a short affidavit, did not constitute legally admissible evidence, and, therefore, could not be acted upon. The version set up by Opposite Party No.1, in its written statement, therefore, did not stand proved. In S.Kumar Vs New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr. III(2005)CPJ 642, where the complainant filed his short affidavit, in support of the averments, contained in the complaint, this Commission held that such an affidavit could not be treated to be legal evidence, and no reliance could be placed, on mere pleadings, contained in the complaint. Keeping in view, the principle of law, laid down in S.Kumar`s case (supra), it is held that the short affidavit, referred to above, filed by Opposite Party No.1, could not be taken into consideration.
15. Opposite Party No.1, could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to prove that the complainant did not allegedly turn-up for security checks, in time; that his boarding pass was not snatched by its lady Manager; that he did not report at the departure lounge, much in advance of the departure of flight; that announcements were made, in his name repeatedly, but he failed to turn-up at the departure gate even 3 minutes, before the departure of the flight; and, as such, he was declared as no-show passenger. However, neither the affidavits of the ground staff of Opposite Party No.1, available at that time, nor the affidavits of Security Personnel, nor the affidavit of the person, who allegedly made announcements repeatedly, in the name of the complainant, nor the affidavit of the person, who could testify that the complainant was shown as no-show passenger, were filed. Even, no document was produced by Opposite Party No.1, to rebut the allegations, contained in the complaint, duly supported by a legally admissible affidavit of the complainant. The District Forum, was, thus, right in holding that Opposite Party No.1, failed to prove the version, set up by it, in the written reply. The District Forum was also right in coming to the conclusion, that the version, set up by the complainant, in his complaint, stood proved, from his affidavit. The District Forum was also right, in coming to the conclusion, that Opposite Party No.1, was deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant.
16. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant travelled back to Chandigarh, in taxi, on 12.04.2011, in taxi, for getting change of date, in the ticket and went back after such change, to Delhi, in the taxi, or not. No doubt, Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, stated that it was on telephone, that the change in the date of ticket was got done. The mere fact that the complainant, did not personally come present at the premises/office of Opposite Party No.2, on 12.04.2011 or 13.04.2011, did not mean that he got change in the date of ticket, after paying Rs.5,400/-, from Delhi. A person could make a telephone call, from any place. On the other hand, copies of the bills Annexure C-2 and C-3, of Azad Taxi Service, having been produced, on record, reveal that the complainant, came back to Chandigarh, from Delhi, on 12.04.2011, and then went back to Delhi, on 13.04.2011. Annexure C-2 copy of the taxi bill, shows that the amount of Rs.4,840/-, paid by the complainant was for his journey, in taxi, on 12.04.2011 from Chandigarh to Delhi and back to Chandigarh. Had he been allowed to board the flight on 12.04.2011, he would not have come back to Chandigarh, on that date. Thus, he spent Rs.2,420/-, i.e. half of the amount shown in Annexure C-2, for coming to Chandigarh on 12.04.2011. He also spent Rs.4,600/- on 13.04.2011, for going back to Delhi, as is evident, from copy of the bill Annexure C-3. The District Forum, however, erred in not taking into consideration, the expenditure incurred by the complainant, towards hiring of taxi, while determining the amount of compensation, awarded to him.
17. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the compensation, awarded by the District Forum, could be said to be inadequate. Since, the appellant is a senior citizen, aged about 69 years, and he proved the allegations, made by him, in the complaint, through his affidavit, which was furnished by him, by way of evidence, and the same did not stand rebutted by Opposite Party No.1, by producing the evidence, it could be said that he suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, at the hands of the staff of Opposite Party No.1, at the Airport. One can imagine the plight of a person, who is abused, whose boarding pass is snatched and who had to undertake the journey, for no-fault of his, from Delhi to Chandigarh and back to Delhi in a taxi. Since, a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, was caused to the complainant, at the hands of the staff of Opposite Party No.1, and he also suffered financial loss, by paying the taxi charges, and amount for change in the date of ticket, as stated above, compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, awarded by the District Forum, in our opinion, could be said to be inadequate. Keeping in view the mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, who is a senior citizen, aged about 69 years, as also financial loss suffered by him, due to the acts of omission and commission of the ground staff of Opposite Party No.1, the compensation is required to be enhanced. If, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-, that could be said to be fair, reasonable, adequate and commensurate to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is, therefore, held that the complainant is entitled to compensation, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, instead of Rs.10,000/-, awarded by the District Forum.
18. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, was wrong, in granting interest, at an excessive rate of 18% p.a., in default of compliance of its order within 45 days, on the amount of compensation, awarded by it, from 02.09.2011 i.e. from the date of filing the complaint. In our considered opinion, if interest @9%, is granted, that would be just, fair and reasonable. The order of the District Forum, granting interest @18% p.a., is modified, and instead, interest @9% p.a., is granted.
19. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant, and the Sales Services Manager of Respondent No.1.
20. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is modified, in the following manner:
i. Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1, shall pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, to the complainant, for causing him mental agony, physical harassment, as also putting him to financial loss, instead of Rs.10,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum.
ii. Interest @18% P.A., in default of compliance of its order, within 45 days, awarded by the District Forum, is reduced to 9% P.A. iii. The other reliefs granted and directions given by the District Forum, shall remain intact.
21. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
22. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
October 1, 2012 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg