State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
General Manager, Air India vs Mrs Ameeta Pradeep Gupta on 16 April, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.A/15/601
(Arising out of order dated 21/02/2015 passed by D.F.South Mumbai in CC/12/155)
General Manager
AIR INDIA
Air India Building
1st floor, Mumbai 400 021 .....Appellant
Versus
Mrs.Ameeta Pradeep Gupta
Proprietor M/s.Dheeraj Enterprises
Res.A-39, Rashtra Sarathi CHS
Deendayal Nagar, Mulund (East) .........Respondent
Mumbai 400 081
BEFORE: Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Dr.S.K.Kakade, Member
PRESENT:Mr.S.Hussain-Advocate for appellant.
Mr.Rajiv Kakade -Advocate for respondent.
ORAL ORDER
Per Hon'ble Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
By this appeal appellants have questioned validity and legality of the impugned judgment and order dated 21/02/2015 passed by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai, in consumer complaint no.155/2012, whereby learned Forum below allowed the complaint partly directing opponent to pay sum of Rs.55,000/- towards mental torture and extra expenditure incurred by the complainant. Appellant was also directed to pay costs in the sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of order.
Briefly stated facts are that the respondent/original complainant had booked online tickets through M/s.Yatra Online Internet Global Services for their travel plan as Mumbai to Delhi for three persons, namely, Mr.Pradeep Gupta, Mrs.Ameeta Gupta and Mr.Dheeraj Gupta by Invoice No.A1/11- 1 12/R6911364 dated 26/02/2012 for an amount of Rs.12,000/- and further from Delhi to Leh for Rs.16,215/- of Flight No.AI-445 with Yatra Reference no.9023296. The said three persons were to travel from New Delhi to Leh by Flight no.AI-445 on 02/05/2012 at 7.10 hours reaching Leh at 8.20 hours on the same day. The case of the complainant is that despite the fact that they reported at Delhi Airport for to board at Flight No.AI-445, they could not get boarding pass due to late reporting on account of preponement of the scheduled departure time of concerned flight. It is a case of the appellant that appellant offered accommodation in next available flight on 03/05/2012 in the concerned sector and respondents were accommodated in the flight of Go Air booked with the assistance of the appellant staff and that the complainants reached from Delhi to Leh on 03/05/2015. It is thus contended that there was no consumer dispute as such.
On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that when complainant had booked tickets for three persons from Mumbai to New Delhi spending sum of Rs.12,000/- then from New Delhi to Leh for sum of Rs.16,215/- by Flight no.AI-445 starting at 7.10 hours, it was the duty of the appellant Air India to assist the complainants by informing preponement of the schedule time, if any, by taking precaution of having their mobile contact numbers through their agent M/s.Yatra Online Internet Global Services. The contention of the appellant that M/s.Yatra Online Internet Global Services were not impleaded in the complaint proceedings is of no use as M/s.Yatra Online Internet Global Services are recognized agent for Air India accepting booking from them. It was for officials concerned of Air India to get the necessary details of the passengers intending to travel by their flight. It was the duty of the Air India to take the details of the passengers including their mobile/contact numbers so as to inform them about the change in the schedule, if any, of the flights for which the tickets were booked.
2When travellers intend to travel by informing the travel agent acting for the Air India and booking has been accepted by Air India for to carry the passengers through their flights, merely because the complainants had to travel by other flight with the assistance of staff, it cannot be said that there was no mental anguish for the passengers who missed their travel as intended by them. When persons travelling by flight fixing their travel programme accordingly with connected flights and booking of the tickets are accepted, precautionary measures on the part of appellant was necessary to get the necessary details of the passengers and their intended travel plan, so as to ensure that passengers can travel by connecting flight as booked. Failure in this regard was rightly considered as deficiency in service resulting in extra expenditure and mental anguish for the complainants. We therefore considering the impugned order and judgment do not find anything unjust or improper so as to warrant interference in impugned order by the Learned District Forum supported by well reasoned judgment.
Appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5000/- payable to the respondent / complainant in addition to what has been already awarded by the Learned District Forum. Amount deposited if any by the appellant be paid to the respondent.
Pronounced on 16th April, 2018.
[Justice A.P.Bhangale] PRESIDENT [Dr.S.K.Kakade] MEMBER Ms 3 4