State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.Viral Shah vs Air India Ltd., on 1 June, 2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal
Case No.
:
168
of 2012
Date
of Institution
:
10.05.2012
Date
of Decision
:
1.6.2012
Dr.Viral
Shah, MBBS, MD, DM (running), Senior Resident,
Department of
Endocrinology, Postgraduate Institute of
Medical Education & Research,
Sector 12, Chandigarh.
--Appellant
Versus
1. Air India Ltd., through its Chairman,
Office of Air India, New Delhi,
2nd Address: Bank Square, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.
2. Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd.,
A-501, 5th floor,
Building No.4, Infinity Park,
Gen. A.K.Vaidya Marg, Dindoshi, Malad
(East), Mumbai 400097.
3.. Khanna
Enterprises Travel Services Branch at PGI, Nehru Hospital,
Ground Floor, Chandigarh.
....Respondents.
Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer
Protection Act, 1986
BEFORE: JUSTICE
SHAM SUNDER(Retd), PRESIDENT.
MRS.
NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Present:
Sh. Arun Singla, Advocate for the appellant.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(Retd), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.4.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainant(now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, through Air India Flight, travelled to Birmingham to attend a Conference, from 9th to 17th April, 2011. The tickets, as well as insurance cover, were obtained from the Opposite Parties(now respondents). It was stated that the scheduled departure of the complainant from Heathrow Airport, London to New Delhi, by Air India Flight No.AI-116 was at 13.40 Hours on 17.4.2011 from Terminal No.3. The complainant checked-in well in time, but the flight was delayed initially for two hours, and thereafter arrived at 6.00 P.M. The complainant boarded the flight at 6.30 P.M. It was stated that during the period of delay, the officials of Opposite Party No.1, did not cooperate. They also did not give the information about the exact time of delay, nor it was displayed as to how much delay was in the departure of the flight. It was further stated that only a coupon of Pounds 7 for lunch was provided, which was too meagre to take a proper lunch. The behaviour of the staff members of the Opposite Parties, was very rude and uncalled for. Even after boarding the said flight at 6.30 P.M., the complainant and other passengers were told to wait for another 1 hours, without disclosing any reason. In this way, the flight was delayed for more than 7 hours. It was further stated that the seat allotted to the complainant was totally uncomfortable and the crew members did not allow him to sit on another vacant seat. It was further stated that the T.V.Screen attached to the seat, which was allotted to the complainant, was also not functioning. Not only this, when the complainant reached New Delhi Airport, he informed the Airport Authorities, that his baggage had not arrived, in the Air Craft. The complainant was made to wait at the Airport till 11.00 A.M., but even then, he received only one baggage, and the second baggage was missing. It was further stated the complainant requested the Officers of Opposite Party No.1, to give, in writing, about the reason of delay of Flight No.AI-116, but they refused to do so. He also requested the Officers of Opposite Party No.1, to compensate him, for the harassment due to delay in the flight, and other difficulties, faced by him, during journey, but to no avail. It was further stated that, on account of delay, in the aforesaid flight, coupled with misguidance, casual & rude attitude of the authorities, the complainant lost one working day, and, as such, he could not join the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, where he was working, on 18.4.2011. It was further stated that the second luggage/baggage was received by him, through courier, after a delay of more than 36 hours i.e. on 19.4.2011 at 8.00 P.M. It was further stated that the complainant took up the matter, with the Opposite Parties for granting him compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment and also deficiency in service, rendered by them, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, he filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only).
3. Opposite Party NO.1, in its written version, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that Flight NO.A1-116 was delayed due to security reasons. It was stated that the amount of pounds 7 was officially fixed for lunch. It was further stated, that in case, that amount was found to be insufficient by the complainant, he could have spent some money, from his own pocket, and claimed its reimbursement later on.
It was further stated that the complainant was informed vide e-mail dated 13.6.2011 that the flight, under reference, had to be diverted to Frankfurt, since there was a fire warning, in the cargo hold. The cargo hold was checked and it was decided to offload the baggage at Frankfurt. However, this information was not available with the staff at the check-in-counter at Heathrow. It was further stated that no defect was reported in the seat, occupied by the complainant. It was further stated that the baggage delivered to the complainant was intact, and no loss or pilferage was reported by him. It was further stated that e-mails of the complainant were duly replied vide Annexures D-1 to D-3. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, admitted the issuance of insurance Policy AnnexureR-2/1. It was stated that, on receipt of information, from the complainant, the claim was duly registered, and he was asked vide e-mail dated 2.6.2011 Annexure R-2/2 to provide necessary documents and also to fill-up the claim form. However, on discussion with the insured, it transpired that the baggage delay had occurred while the complainant was returning to India from Heathrow. It was further stated that since the baggage delay had occurred, on return journey to India, he was not entitled to any compensation under the Exclusion Clause of the terms & conditions of the Policy, so no amount was payable to the complainant. It was further stated that this fact was duly communicated to the complainant, vide letter dated 15.6.2011 Annexure R-2/3. It was denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering service. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. Opposite Party No.3 was duly served, but no authorized representative, put in appearance, on its behalf, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against ex parte.
6. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/ complainant.
9..
We have heard the Counsel for the appellant , and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, Opposite Party No.1 was completely deficient, in rendering service, for the reasons, that the flight from Heathrow Airport was unduly delayed without any intimation to the complainant regarding the period of delay. He further submitted that not only this, even the complainant was given a voucher of 7 Pounds, which was not sufficient to provide proper lunch to him and he had to spend more money from his pocket. He further submitted that even the behaviour of the Officers/Officials of Opposite Party No.1 was rude. He further submitted that even the seat, which was provided to him, in the Aeroplane, was not comfortable, but he was not allowed to occupy another seat, which was lying vacant. He further submitted that even one baggage of the complainant was missing, when the flight reached Delhi Airport, which was given to him after 36 hours. It was further stated that on account of the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, a lot of mental agony and physical harassment was caused to the complainant, but this fact was not taken into consideration, by the District Forum, and it illegally dismissed the complaint.
11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and, on going through the evidence and record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal deserves to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant purchased the tickets for air journey and obtained insurance cover from Opposite Party No.2. Annexure D-1 is a copy of the email dated 13.6.2011, sent by Sh.P.K.Bhandari of Air India to the complainant, in response to e-mail dated 26-4-2011. The relevant portion of this e-mail is reproduced as under:-
1b. AI-115/17APR11 was diverted to Frankfurt since there was a fire warning in the cargo hold. At Frankfurt, the cargo hold was checked and after inspection, it was decided to offload all the baggage/cargo at Frankfurt.
1c. Passengers could not be advised about the delay at the time of check-in as our staff were not aware that the flight was diverted to Frankfurt.
1c. Since there was a creeping delay, announcements were made for passengers to collect refreshment coupons.
1d.
1e. There were 38 vacant seats in Economy Class. There may be a possibility that the crew would not have been able to assist much because of non-availability of aisle/window seats.
2a. As per our record, in flight Entertainment System on the subject flight was normal. It is probably that the server associated with the seat was intermittent and got reset. Further no defect has been reported about seat 31H allocated to you, which continue to function normal till date.
3. As regards your mis-handled baggage, we would like to advise you that AI-116/17APR departed from London without baggage due to security reasons. The reason of non-arrival of baggage was informed to the passengers after arrival of AI-116/17APR in Delhi.
12. From D-1, copy of the e-mail, the relevant portion of which, has been extracted above, it is abundantly clear that the flight was diverted to Frankfurt since there was fire warning in the cargo hold. It was, under these circumstances, that it was decided to offload all the baggage/cargo at Frankfurt. The reason of delay was not in the knowledge of the staff at the check-in counter of Opposite Party No.1, nor it was aware that the flight was to be diverted to Frankfurt. It was, under these circumstances, that, at the relevant time, the complainant could not be informed about the reason with regard to diversion of flight and delay therein. Document D-1 was prepared, in the due discharge of official duties by the Officers/Officials of Opposite Party No.1. Presumption of correctness is, thus, attached to the same. No cogent and convincing evidence has been produced by the complainant to rebut D-1. Since diversion of flight, resulting into delay, was for the reasons, beyond the control of Opposite Party No.1, it could not be blamed for the same.
Under these circumstances, the District Forum was right, in holding, that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, on this count.
13. No doubt, it was admitted by the complainant that, he was given the amount of 7 Pounds for arranging lunch, which, according to him, was insufficient to have a good lunch. It may be stated here, that the Airlines could only provide the amount for lunch to the complainant, which had been decided by it, by way of a policy decision. Such decisions are taken by the Board of Directors, and not by the staff, sitting at the check-in counter. In case, the complainant thought that the amount provided to him, was insufficient, he could spend some more amount, from his own pocket, and could claim reimbursement of those expenses. The staff sitting at the check-in counter could not change policy of the Airlines, which was framed by the Board of Directors. On this count, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Officers/Officials of Opposite Party No.1. The District Forum was right in holding so.
14. The fact, whether there was any defect, in the seat, which was allotted to the complainant, while he was undertaking journey, in the aeroplane, is also not proved. There were 38 vacant seats in the Economy Class, in which the complainant was traveling. There is nothing, on record, that the complainant made any written complaint, to the Crew or the Pilot of the Aeroplane that the seat which was provided to him, was not comfortable. No affidavit of any other passenger, was also produced, on record, to establish that the seat, which was provided to the complainant in the Aeroplane, was not comfortable, and he had complained to the crew members or the Pilot of the Aeroplane. In the absence of any tangible evidence, having been produced by the complainant, in this regard, the self-serving statement, by way of affidavit, cannot be taken, as a gospel truth that the seat provided to him was uncomfortable, but he was not allowed to occupy another seat, which was lying vacant. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service, on this count too.
15. No doubt, there was delay in the delivery of one baggage of the complainant. In D-1, the relevant portion whereof, has been extracted above, the reason for delay in delivery of one baggage of the complainant was duly mentioned. It was, in clear-cut terms, stated in this document that reason for non-delivery of one baggage, in time, was that AI-116/17 departed from London without baggage due to security reasons. Security reasons, could not be disclosed to the complainant, or any other passenger, travelling in the Aeroplane. Security reasons are to be given due/paramount importance over the personal reasons of a passenger. Since there was delay in delivery of one baggage, to the complainant, on account of security reasons, as mentioned in D-1, it could not be said that Opposite Party NO.1, was deficient , in rendering service, to the complainant.
16. No doubt, claim was lodged by the complainant, with Opposite Party No.2, from which, insurance cover was purchased by him. The schedule of Travel Insurance is Annexure R/1. The parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the insurance cover,, purchased by the complainant. At page No.11 of Annexure R1, under the heading Type of Claim, it has been recorded that there is no baggage delay coverage in India. Since there was no baggage delay coverage while the complainant was travelling to India, as per the terms and conditions of R/1, referred to above, he could not claim any compensation, for the same. Therefore, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2.
17. No other point, was urged by the Counsel for the appellant.
18. The order of the District Forum ,does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. The same deserves to be upheld.
19. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The impugned order of the District Forum is upheld.
20. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
21. The file be consigned to the Record Room, after compliance.
Pronounced.
June1,2012 Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER *Js