State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tanvi Ladha vs In-Charge, Qatar Airways on 17 October, 2019
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/178/2015 ( Date of Filing : 26 May 2015 ) 1. Tanvi Ladha D/o Sri Kamlesh Ladha, CK-187, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, near Tank no.9, Kolkata-700 091. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. In-Charge, Qatar Airways Arcadia Center, 31, Dr. Ambedkar Sarani, P.S. Topsia, Kolkata-700 046, West Bengal, India. 2. In-Charge, Qatar Airways Bajaj Bhawan, Gr. Floor, opp., Inox Cine Max, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021, Maharashtra, India. 3. In-Charge, Qatar Airways Tower-I, next to A1 Manne Building, Airport Road, Doha, Qataar. 4. In-Charge, Qatar Airways 875, Noreth Michigan Avenue, Suite - 1310, Chicago, IL-60611, United States of America. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Complainant: Mr. Raj Kumar Lahoti Sk. Abu Sakar , Advocate For the Opp. Party: Mr. Shashank Garg.Ms. Soma Roy.Mr. Avishek Rpy., Advocate Dated : 17 Oct 2019 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Briefly narrated, case of the Complainant is that, she purchased requisite air tickets through a travel agent on payment of due charges to the tune of Rs. 1,11,543/-. As per schedule, the 26-hours journey from Atlanta airport to N.S.C. Bose International airport started on 18-12-2014. In course of said journey, she was informed by one official of the OPs that her flight from Dallas to Doha had been delayed by 5 hours. Although she urged the officials of the OPs to change the connection, she was not rendered any assistance and was compelled to stand in a line for about 3.5 hours in front of the ticketing office of the OPs. At that time, the OPs did not make any sitting arrangement for her at the airport, let alone food or water though they took considerable money for providing meal to her.
Thereafter, one official of the OPs, namely, Mr. Umaid offered the Complainant a flight to Kolkata via Mumbai or Delhi. The said official took the passport of the Complainant and returned it after several hours. Finally, the Complainant was put on a Qatar Airline Flight from Dallas to Doha. The said flight took 16 hours to reach its destination instead of scheduled 14 hours and thereafter, the Complainant had to wait for almost 5 hours at the airport and during this period, no refreshment was offered to her by the OPs.
Further allegation of the Complainant is that, at the Mumbai airport, she found that, out of her two baggage, one went missing.
At the Mumbai airport also, allegedly, the OPs did not make any proper arrangement for a connecting flight to Kolkata. Due to this, the Complainant got stuck at the said airport from 8.00 a.m. in the morning till 1.00 a.m. (midnight). As the Complainant did not possess sufficient money, she could not make any alternative arrangement on her own to reach Kolkata after booking a fresh ticket of another airline.
Finally, she reached Kolkata airport on 21-12-2014 at 05.30 a.m. by a Jet Airways flight.
In this process, the 26 hours journey from Atlanta to Kolkata took 3 days.
As the missing baggage of the Complainant could not be located on her arrival at the Calcutta airport, she was compelled to buy new bag, shoes, winter clothes and other necessary garments. By the time, the missing baggage was traced out, the Complainant already returned to Atlanta.
Taking strong exception to such harassment, a demand notice was issued to the OPs on 22-01-2015 and in turn, vide a letter dated 03-02-2015, the OPs urged her to wait for a detail reply. However, as the OPs thereafter did not get back to her, she filed the complaint case.
The counter case of the OPs is that, it was at Dallas that the Complainant was informed that her flight from Dallas to Doha was substantially delayed owing to which she would miss her connecting flight from Doha and hence, she was offered the option of a stopover at Doha at the expenses of the OPs to enable her fly to Kolkata on the following evening. However, for the reasons best known to her, the Complainant urged the OPs to make some alternative arrangement so that she could avoid staying overnight in Doha. As they did not have any immediate flight out of Doha to Kolkata, she was offered the option of travelling to Kolkata via Mumbai or Delhi by a Jet Airways flight.
It is asserted by the OPs that since the delay caused was beyond their control, in terms of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) issued by the Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation, they had no obligation to provide any refreshment to the Complainant or making alternative arrangement for her stay at the Doha airport. However, out of good gesture, they went out of their way to assist the Complainant in every possible manner. As per the wish of the Complainant, a Jet Airways ticket was arranged by the OPs to reach Kolkata via Mumbai. The Complainant ultimately reached Kolkata safely on 21-12-2014.
Regarding the allegation of missing of baggage, it is submitted by the OPs that the same went missing on the way to Mumbai from Doha. As the Complainant did not get proper assistance from officials of the Jet Airways in this regard, she sought assistance from the OPs, who not only located the said missing baggage, but also handed over the same to Complainant's mother at the Kolkata airport.
The moot point for determination is whether the Complainant deserves any relief or not.
Undisputedly, due to delayed arrival of the flight from Dallas to Doha, the Complainant could not catch the connecting flight to Kolkata.
The delay was though attributed to technical reasons/contingencies allegedly beyond the control of the OPs, no material/tangible proof is advanced from the side of the OPs to establish such fact.
As regards the allegation of the Complainant of non-arrangement of any refreshment at the airport, the OPs claimed that they had no obligation to make such arrangement under the CAR.
It is already noted hereinabove that no tangible proof is placed before us by the OPs to establish that the delay caused was indeed beyond their control. In view of this, we do not find any valid reason to let off the OPs from the charges of gross deficiency in service, as leveled by the Complainant.
The OPs though blamed the Jet Airways for the missing of Complainant's baggage, let us not forget that all her misfortune began solely on account of the inability of the OPs to run the flight Dallas to Doha in time. Therefore, the OPs cannot completely shrug of their liability in the matter.
It is to be kept in mind that a young girl of 19 years was travelling all alone from Atlanta in the USA to Kolkata. Therefore, it would be highly improper to judge everything from technical point of view. Had the OPs been diligent in adhering to the original time schedule, surely her journey from Alnanta to Kolkata would not turn into a nightmare. The harrowing experience of the Complainant, as narrated in the petition of complaint and other documents, does not bear testimony of the human approach of the OPs, notwithstanding the latter claims to the contrary.
When a passenger books all legs of her journey with one single booking, it becomes obligatory on the part of the airline to arrange alternative transportation as soon as possible. Further, it is normal human instinct to desire to reach the intended destination at the earliest. In view of this, if the Complainant, who was a teenager girl, refused to accede to the proposal of the OPs to stay put at the Doha airport for one night though alternative flight was available to fly to Mumbai, certainly, she cannot be cursed.
The OPs though boast of their consumer friendly attitude stating that they carried out necessary formalities on behalf of the Complainant and booked her in a Jet airways flight at their own expenses, they conveniently suppressed the fact that it was obligatory on their part to arrange for alternative transportation till the final destination as the entire journey plan of the Complainant went haywire on account of their lapses to maintain the time schedule. If we analyze the conduct of the OPs towards the Complainant at the Mumbai airport, the real face of their so called 'consumer friendly approach' comes to fore. Allegedly, the Complainant was stranded at the said airport from 8 a.m. to 1 a.m. (midnight) as the OPs simply remained a fence sitter instead of accommodating her in the first available flight. Such unprofessional/inhuman approach on the part of an international airport towards a hapless teenager is quite unheard of.
Considering all these aspects, we allow this case with a cost of Rs. 40,000/-. The OPs shall also pay compensation for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Complainant within 40 days from this day. Non-compliance of this order within the scheduled time frame as above shall made them liable to pay simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the aforesaid decretal amount for the entire period of default. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER