State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ravindra S.Chhabra vs Jet Airways on 26 December, 2022
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2015 (Arising out of order dated 19.01.2015 passed in C.C.No.119/2013 by District Commission, Indore) RAVINDRA SINGH CHHABRA, S/O LATE SHRI TRILOK SINGH CHHABRA, R/O G-6, MAN HERITAGE, 6/2 SOUTH TUKOGANJ, NEAR HIGH COURT, INDORE (M.P.) ... APPELLANT. Versus JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. HAVING ADDRESSES AT: (A) JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. G-2, VIDYAPATI, 17, RACE COURSE ROAD, INDORE (M.P.) (B) G-11/12, OUTER CIRCLE, G-BLOCK, CANNAUGHT CIRCUS, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 001 .... RESPONDENT. BEFORE : HON'BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES : Appellant is present in person. None for the respondent. O R D E R (Passed On 26.12.2022)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:
This is an appeal by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 19.01.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal -2- Forum, Indore (for short 'District Commission) in C.C.No.119/2013 whereby the complaint filed by him has been allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant in his complaint are that he is an advocate practicing within the jurisdiction of the High Court of M.P., Bench at Indore and in a regular course of profession he is required to go out of station to attend the cases of his client. He has further stated that National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd (GSK) are his clients. The complainant was required to attend the matter of GSK at Raisen on 01.02.2013, All India Lawyer's Conference of NCTE on 02.02.2013 at New Delhi and one matter of GSK at Chhatarpur on 04.02.2013.
3. It is further stated that the complainant had purchased air tickets from International Travel Forum, Indore, an agent of opposite party on 04.01.2013 for the evening flight of the opposite party airways from Bhopal to New Delhi on 01.02.2013 to attend the conference on 02.02.2013 at New Delhi and for his air journey from New Delhi to Khajuraho on 03.02.2013 to attend the case at Chhatarpur on 04.02.2013, for which he paid Rs.10,525/-. To catch the flight for Khajuraho scheduled departure 10.40 am, he reached New Delhi airport at about 9.15 am. It is alleged that after standing in a que at the counter for 45 minutes, he was informed by the personnel of opposite party that the flight was overbooked. The complainant registered -3- his protest and expressed his anguish as he has to attend a court case on 04.02.2013 at Chhatarpur. It is alleged that he was never informed that the flight was overbooked. It is alleged that on comprehending the urgency of the complainant and after having sought some guidance, an employee of respondent airways Mr. Shriji issued boarding pass for the flight to the complainant at about 10.30am and he was asked to take all his baggage as hand baggage as the 'check in' for the luggage had already been closed. At the security check, the complainant was asked to deposit the scissors in his shaving kit kept in the suitcase at the counter as it was not permitted in hand baggage but permitted in the cabin baggage. All this consumed a lot of time and after security check when he reached gate no.41, he was informed that the flight had left.
4. It is further submitted that the personnel of the opposite party, after having issued the boarding pass, could have informed the air staff to hold the flight for a while so as to enable the complainant to board the flight. It is alleging that the opposite party acknowledging their unfair trade practice issued a boarding pass to the complainant for the next day flight i.e. on the date of hearing at Chhatarpur. The complainant did not have any option but to accept the boarding pass. It is alleged that compensation of Rs.4,000/- was also offered which was refused by him but later received under protest on a representation made by the personnel of the opposite party that for rest -4- of the compensation, the complainant could exhaust legal remedy. On account of such act of the opposite party he had to cancel the hotel booking at Khajuraho and had gone to hotel at New Delhi. On the next day, the complainant boarded the flight and reached Khajuraho and at around 1.30pm he rushed to Chhatarpur court to attend the matter. The complainant had purchased the air ticket of the flight from New Delhi to Khajuraho only for the purpose of attending the matter at Chhatarpur in a comfortable and relaxed mode. Due to unfair trade practice on part of the opposite party, he had to travel in a panic mood with an apprehension of an adverse order against his client. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of opposite party filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.
5. The opposite party -airways in its reply to the complaint before the District denying the allegations made in the complaint, raised preliminary objection that filing of complaint by the complainant is an abuse of law and is not maintainable as the complainant approached the District Commission by suppressing material facts. The averments made in the complaint are vague baseless and with malafide intent. The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of deficiency in service, without any documentary evidence in support of his complaint.
-5-6. It is further submitted that the true and correct facts are on the occasion of marginal overbooking, the complainant was given an option of stand by boarding card which he did not agree to. As such, the Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) who occupied the seat in the flight for flight maintenance purposes was requested to go in cockpit. The passenger was thus allotted the said seat which was actually reserved for AME. The complainant was given boarding pass and informed to quickly reach to Security Hold Area (SHA), where the staff member of the opposite party airlines was waiting to receive the complainant as the flight was already behind the schedule. After clearing the security check the complainant reached at Gate no.37 for departure, however at that point of time, he realized that he had forgotten his jacket at the security hold area itself. He came back to security hold area to collect his jacket and since Delhi airport is very big airport, when he came back to the boarding gate (which is a remote gate) he missed his flight for his own fault. It is thus very obvious that the complainant never faced any denied boarding situation as alleged neither he faced any inconvenience or trouble due to the staff of airlines.
7. When the complainant missed the flight. The staff of opposite party looked for flights of other airlines to Khajuraho on the same day, however, none of the airlines had any flight operating on that day. When the complainant was informed about the whole situation and was offered cash -6- compensation of Rs.4,000/-, free travel in the next day's flight and also free of cost lounge invitation and stay at the request of the complainant, he accepted this offer without any dispute. Compensation of Rs.4,000/- was offered purely as a gesture of good courtesy & goodwill and not as an acceptance of liability. It is submitted that there was no unfair trade practice on part of the opposite party airlines and its staff was most efficient while performing their duty. The complainant was aptly compensated as per provisions of Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) circular which is the maximum liability of the opposite party-airline or any other airline in given circumstances.
8. It is further submitted that the practice of overbooking is followed by almost airlines worldwide as each airlines operates in a competitive environment. The reason why this is done is that there are invariably some last minutes cancellations of tickets by passengers as a result of which an airline may have to carry vacant seats. However, based on an extensive trend analysis, airlines overbook flights to the extent that the number of overbooked passengers is equivalent to the experienced last minute cancellations. However, on that fateful day, this statistical modem did not work which resulted in an unfortunate incident. It is therefore prayed that the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice and equity.
-7-9. The District Commission after appreciating the evidence available on record holding the opposite party-deficient in service allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.
10. Heard complainant/appellant. Perused the record.
11. Complainant/appellant argued that the impugned order of District Commission is contrary to the facts on record and the circumstances of the case. The District Commission failed to appreciate that the compensation ought to have been awarded in consonance with the act of deficiency in service as also the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant. The District Commission grossly erred in law in not appreciating that the opposite party had indulged into act of forgery by manipulating the letter of release so as to demonstrate that the amount of Rs.4,000/- was accepted without 'under protest'. The District Commission ought to have initiated legal action against the opposite party for having committed offence of cheating and forgery with it whereas the order of the District Commission is completely silent on this aspect. The amount of compensation awarded to the complainant is abysmally low. It is therefore prayed that the order of the District Commission be modified and the complainant be awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed in the complaint.
-8-12. Before the District Commission, the complainant has filed his affidavit, counter affidavit along with documents Annexure A to K. On behalf of opposite party-airlines, affidavit of Shri Nimesh Kumar Shukla, Airport Manager, Indore along with documents Annexure A to D.
13. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had booked an air ticket for travelling from New Delhi to Khajuraho on 03.02.2013, the by the flight of the opposite party. Schedule departure of the flight was 10.40 am and he reached airport at 9.15 am.
14. It is an allegation of the complainant that since the officials of the airline told him that the flight was overbooked and on his request issued boarding pass at the 11th hour therefore, he missed the flight. On the other hand, the defense of the opposite party-airlines is that there is practice of overbooking looking to the last minute cancellations even then the complainant was accommodated and got the seat without any trouble. Since he kept scissors in his baggage, therefore, sometime was consumed in Security Hold Area and thereafter he had forgotten his jacket at security hold area and when he came to the boarding gate after collecting the same, he missed the flight. However, this fact was controverted by the complainant in his counter affidavit.
15. Having heard the complainant/appellant and having gone through the record, we find that it is an admitted fact that on 03.02.2013 to -9- board the flight having scheduled departure at 10.40 am, the complainant reached airport at 9.15 am whereas he was required to reach/report airport before two hours from the departure of flight. Secondly, he was very well aware of the fact, since he was frequently travelling through air journey that scissors and knives are prohibited then in such a situation when he was having scissors in his baggage, it took much time in security check up at security hold area. The boarding time was 10 am which is apparent from Annexure F filed by the complainant himself. In Annexure-G, filed by the complainant, it has been specifically mentioned that boarding gate closes 25 minutes prior to departure and Frisking of person and checking of hand baggage is mandatory for all guests and passengers were requested to co-operate. Please co-operate with security.
16. In Annexure-A at page 92 of the record, filed by the opposite party it has been specifically mentioned that scissors, sharp objects, knives are strictly prohibited in cabin luggage as also in hand baggage. Therefore, the complainant was himself liable for carrying scissors with his baggage and it if for this reason, it took much time in security hold area. The opposite party cannot be held liable for the same. Even then the opposite party cooperate the complainant/appellant and made every effort so that the complainant cannot miss the flight but unfortunately he missed the flight.
-10-17. The opposite party-airline tried to search any other flight of any other airline from New Delhi to Khajuraho on the very same day but when they did not find it, they paid him compensation of Rs.4,000/- as per CAR circular as a gesture of goodwill and courtesy and offered free ticket for the next day flight and he completed his journey on the next day.
18. For the inconvenience caused to the complainant the District Commission has awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with Rs.1,000/- as costs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant/appellant has been adequately compensated and we find no reason to enhance the same.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the District Commission has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record and has rightly allowed the complaint awarding compensation and costs. We find no reason to modify the impugned order by enhancing the amount of compensation as awarded by the District Commission. The impugned order is affirmed.
20. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A. K. Tiwari) (Dr. Srikant Pandey) Presiding Member Member