State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vikrant Gugnani vs Lufthansa Germana Airlines on 18 September, 2018
CC/14/85 1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Consumer Complaint No.CC/14/85
1. Mr. Vikrant Gugnani
2. Mrs. Roopali Gugnai
3. Mast Vivaan Adit Gugnai,
(Represented through his father
as natural guardian)
4. Miss Samara Gugnani
(Represented through her father
as natural guardian)
All R/at - 1601, Raheja Empress,
392, V.S. Marg,
Opp. Siddhivinayak, Temple,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400 025. .....Complainants.
Versus
1. M/s. Lufthansa Germane Airlines,
Chhatrapati Shivaji International
(BOM) Airport, Vile Parle (East),
Mumbai - 400 099.
2. M/s. Inorbit Travels,
16, Kamat Industrial Estate,
1st Floor, Opp. Siddhivinayak Temple,
Behind Hotel Kohinoor Park,
396, V.S. Marg, Prabhadevi,
Mumbai - 400 025.
3. Mr. Tarun Malhotra,
16, Kamat Industrial Estate,
1st Floor, Opp. Siddhivinayak Temple,
Behind Hotel Kohinoor Park,
396, V.S. Marg, Prabhadevi, ......Opponent Nos.1 to 3
Mumbai - 400 025.
BEFORE: D.R. Shirasao, Presiding Judicial Member
Dr.S.K. Kakade, Member
PRESENT: Advocate Mr.Sajira Jondhale i/b Adv.Mr.Uday Wavikar for
Complainants.
Advocate Mr.Pravir Shetty for Opponent No.1.
None present for Opponent Nos.2 & 3.
CC/14/85 2
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr.D.R.Shirasao, Presiding Judicial Member
1. Complainants have filed this complaint for getting back the amount of air tickets alongwith cost and compensation. Complainants submitted that Complainant No.1 is working as Chief Executive Officer in M/s. Reliance Capital Ltd. Complainant No.1 booked tickets for himself and his family members from Opponent No.1 through Opponent nos.2 & 3. At the time of booking of air tickets, Opponent Nos.2 & 3 informed Complainant No.1 that he will be getting benefit of travel miles. Complainant No.1 booked tickets of Opponent No.1 for going to Washington from Mumbai and back from Washington to Mumbai. For that purpose he had paid amount of Rs.11,16,238/- to Opponent Nos.2 & 3 alongwith cancellation charges of Rs.10,880/- for canceling his economy class tickets and booking business class tickets. Complainant No.1 was also required to pay amount of Rs.5,124/- for himself and amount of Rs.5,139/- for the insurance of his family members. Thus, in all Complainant No.1 had paid amount of Rs.11,35,143/- to Opponent No.1 through Opponent Nos.2 & 3.
2) At the time of return journey from Washington DC to Frankfurt, Complainant No.1 was informed at airport that flight from Washington DC to Frankfurt is code travel flight between Opponent No.1 and United Airlines. Accordingly, from Washington DC to Frankfurt travel of the Complainant no.1 and his family members was by United Airlines. However, on that day the flight of United Airlines delayed by 4 hours. Consequently, after coming to Frankfurt, Complainant no.1 and his family members also missed connected direct flight from Frankfurt to Mumbai. By that flight Complainant no.1 would have reached Mumbai alongwith his family members in the night of 30/07/2013 at 1.00 a.m. CC/14/85 3
3) It is the case of the Complainant no.1 that, when he reached to Frankfurt alongwith his family members no one had taken care of his family members and for getting food passes and further journey tickets he was required to run from pillar to post. Ultimately persons of United Airlines had provided food passes to Complainant no.1 and his family members. However, they could not get good food in the restaurant. Ultimately persons of United Airlines directed them to go to Air India terminal for collecting their boarding passes. At the time of collecting boarding passes, Complainants learnt that the flight is not directly going to Mumbai and it is going to Delhi. When they reached Delhi the Complainants learnt that their further journey from Delhi to Mumbai is in a flight at about 12.40 p.m. and the same is going to Mumbai via Jodhpur. It is the case of the Complainant no.1 that by that flight he would have reached Mumbai at about 4.00 p.m. late by 15 hours. Hence, Complainant had taken decision to buy another tickets for directly going to Mumbai from Delhi. Accordingly, Complainant had purchased tickets of Jet Airways at his own cost of Rs.21,570/-. As it was Jet Airways flight, he was required to pay further charges of Rs.17,500/- towards excess baggage.
4) After coming to Mumbai Complainant informed about the inconvenience caused to him by giving letter to Opponent No.1 and Opponent Nos.2 & 3. He had also informed them about giving benefit of travel miles to him. However, Jet Airways informed him that they are not in position to give this benefit to Complainant No.1. Because of the inconvenience caused to Complainants, Complainants have filed this case against Opponents for getting back the amount of air tickets alongwith amount expended by them for purchasing tickets from Delhi to Mumbai alongwith cost and compensation.
5) Opponent No.1 contested complaint by filing their written version on record. They submitted that at the time of purchasing tickets CC/14/85 4 Complainants had received information that their journey from Washington DC to Frankfurt is by United Airlines Flight No.UA932. Hence, they submitted that Complainant No.1 was already knowing this fact and his contention cannot be accepted that he learnt this fact for the first time while boarding at Washington DC. They submitted that the flight of United Airlines by which journey of Complainants was from Washington DC to Frankfurt was delayed of 4 hours, hence the further flight of Complainants from Frankfurt to Mumbai by the flight of Opponent No.1 was missed. Hence, they submitted that inconvenience was caused to Complainants only because the United Airlines was delayed. Hence, Complainants have cause of action in that respect against United Airlines and Complainants cannot have any cause of action in that respect against Opponent No.1. Moreover, they submitted that the flight of United Airlines was delayed from Washington to Frankfurt hence cause of action arose at Washington DC. Hence, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try this complaint. They also submitted that United Airlines is necessary party to proceeding because of whom inconvenience is caused to Complainants. However, Complainants have not made United Airlines as party to proceeding. Hence, complaint filed by Complainants is to be dismissed for want of non joinder of necessary party to proceeding. They specifically denied that for whatever inconvenience caused to Complainant No.1 and his family members at Frankfurt, Opponent No.1 is responsible. Hence, they submitted that the complaint filed by the Complainants against Opponent No.1 to be dismissed.
6) Opponent No.2 & 3 also contested complaint by filing their written version on record. They specifically denied that Complainant No.1 had purchased air tickets of Opponent No.1 from them. They submitted that Complainant No.1 has purchased those tickets from his own sources. Hence, because of those air tickets whatever CC/14/85 5 inconvenience is caused to Complainant and his family members, Opponent Nos.2 & 3 are not responsible. Hence, they submitted that complaint filed by the Complainant be dismissed against them.
7) Considering the rival contentions of parties, following points arise for our determination and we decided the same as follows for the reasons given below:-
Sr.No. Points Answer
1 Whether complainants are Yes
consumer of opponents?
2 Whether opponents have given No
deficiency of service to
complainants?
3 Whether complainants are entitled No
to get reliefs as claimed?
4 What order? As per final order.
REASONS:-
As to point nos.1 to 4 :-
Heard Ld.Advocate appearing for Complainants. He submitted that Complainant No.1 had booked tickets for going to Washington DC from Mumbai and return back from Washington DC to Mumbai of opponent No.1 from Opponent Nos.2 & 3. In that respect air tickets and other necessary documents are filed on record. Hence, Complainants are consumers of Opponents. He submitted that at the time of return journey at the airport of Washington DC Complainant No.1 had learnt first time that his journey from Washington DC to Frankfurt is by United Airlines as it is code share service of Opponent No.1. He submitted that Opponents had to give information about the same to Complainant No.1 well in advance and before starting of his journey from Mumbai to Washington DC. He submitted that by not furnishing this information to Complainant No.1, Opponents have given deficiency in service to Complainants. He submitted that the United Airlines flight coming from Washington DC to Frankfurt was delayed CC/14/85 6 by 4 hours. Consequently the flight of Complainants from Frankfurt to Mumbai was also missed. Hence, Complainant No.1 alongwith his family members could not reach Mumbai as scheduled by him. Hence, he submitted that Opponents have given deficiency in service in that respect to Complainant no.1 and his family members. He submitted that moreover, at Frankfurt Airport Complainant No.1 was required to run pillar to post and to contact number of persons from United Airlines for collecting food passes and boarding passes for his onward journey to Mumbai. He submitted that at that time Complainant No.1 was alongwith his wife and two children all of them suffered lot as they could not get proper food at Frankfurt Airport. He submitted that at the time of boarding flight Complainant No.1 learnt that the flight is not directly going to Mumbai but it is going to Delhi. After coming to Delhi further journey of Complainants was booked in a flight going to Mumbai via Jodhpur. By that flight Complainant no.1 would have reached Mumbai alongwith his family members at about 4.p.m. near about 15 hours late. He submitted that hence, Complainant No.1 had taken decision and he had purchased tickets of Jet Airways for directly coming to Mumbai from Delhi. He had made that expenditure from his own pocket. As it was journey by Jet Airways, he was also required to pay additional amount for extra luggage. For that purpose Complainant No.1 had suffered great inconvenience. Complainant is also entitled to get facility of getting point of air travel. However, he could not get that facility for entire travel. This facility was not available with Jet Airlines. He submitted that, as Opponent Nos.2 & 3 had not properly booked tickets of Complainant No.1 and Opponent No.1 had arranged journey of Complainant No.1 and his family members by United Airlines from Washington DC to Delhi, Complainants caused this inconvenience. Hence, Complainant is entitled to get back the amount of air tickets and expenditure made by him for purchasing air tickets CC/14/85 7 from Delhi to Mumbai alongwith cost and compensation. He submitted that Complainant No.1 is working as CEO in M/s. Reliance Capital Ltd. in all 9 Companies are under his control where 4,000 to 5,000 employees are working. Because of the Opponents such inconvenience was caused to Complainant No.1 and his family members. Hence, they are liable to return the amount of air tickets alongwith cost and compensation to Complainant. Hence, he submitted that the complaint filed by the Complainant be allowed. Ld.Advocate appearing for Complainant relied on following rulings -
1) 1989 AIR 1239 : A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V/s. A.P. Agencies - In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered that when express contract is executed in between the parties then the place where the contract is made, where acceptance of contract is communicated, where contract is performed, where money under contract is paid and where repudiation of contract is received any of the places territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
2) IV (2003) CPJ 114 (NC) : U.s. Awasthy V/s. Gulf Air and Anr. - In this case Complainant had purchased ticket from establishment of respondent-airlines in India therefore, the concerned State Commission has jurisdiction to try the case.
Ld.Advocate appearing for Complainant also relied on the directions given by office of Director General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi in respect of passengers to whom boarding is denied or them could not avail journey due to cancellation of flights or if there are delays in flights. As per these guidelines when delay in the flight is more than 4 hours then passenger is entitled to refund of air ticket or to go on flight to the first point of departure or to go by alternate transport to the final destination or to go by alternate transportation as per the passengers convenience. It is also observed that such passengers are CC/14/85 8 entitled for meals and refreshments during waiting time and hotel accommodation including transportation if necessary.
Heard Ld.Advocate appearing for Opponent No.1. He submitted that at the time of purchasing air tickets, Complainant No.1was having knowledge that his return journey ticket from Washington DC to Frankfurt is of United Airlines. This fact is already mentioned in the air tickets of Complainant purchased by him. He was having this knowledge before proceeding journey to Washington DC from Mumbai. Hence, contention of Complainant cannot be accepted that he learnt this fact for the first time on airport of Washington DC. He submitted that the flight of United Airlines was delayed due to technical problems in aircraft by 4 hours. Hence, Complainant and his family members missed direct flight from Frankfurt to Mumbai, which was arranged by Opponent No.1 for Complainants. However, Complainants missed this flight only because of delayed flight of United Airlines from Washington DC to Frankfurt. He submitted that hence, the inconvenience was caused to Complainant No.1 and his family members because of delayed of flight of United Airlines and cause of action for filing complaint also arise at the airport and Washington DC as that flight was delayed. He submitted that hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint. Moreover, the complaint is to be dismissed for want of necessary party, as United Airlines is necessary party to the proceeding because of which delay was caused to Complainants and inconvenience also caused to Complainants. He submitted that as it was responsibility of United Airlines they had provided food passes to Complainants and also arranged their further journey from Frankfurt to Delhi and from Delhi to Mumbai. For this travel Complainant was not required to make any expenditure. He submitted that whatever inconvenience was caused to Complainant No.1 and his family members at Frankfurt Airport, it was CC/14/85 9 because of United Airlines and Opponent No.1 had no concern of the same. After coming to Delhi, Complainant No.1 on his own accord purchased tickets of Jet Airlines for coming to Mumbai. Complainant cannot get this amount from Opponent No.1. Opponent No.1 is also not required to pay the entire air fare to the Complainants as they have already traveled from Mumbai to Washington DC. In respect of inconvenience caused to Complainants at the airport of Frankfort, they have cause of action against United Airlines and they cannot claim compensation from Opponent No.1. Hence, he submitted that complaint filed by the Complainant against Opponent No.1 is not tenable and hence, same should be dismissed.
No one appeared for Opponent Nos.2 & 3. The Ld.Advocate appearing for Opponent No.1 relied on following rulings -
1) (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 135 Sonic Surgical V/s. National Insurance Company - In this case as cause of action arose at Ambala, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered that State Commission Haryana only have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
2) (1991) 3 Company Law Journal 188 (NC) - Indian Airlines Corporation V/s. Consumer Education and Research Society
- In this case the cause of action had arisen in Bombay and complaint filed against Corporation before the District Forum Ahmedabad. The Hon'ble National Commission considered That complaint before District Forum Ahmedabad is not maintainable.
3) (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 567 Union of India V/s. Adnani Exports Ltd. - In this ruling it is observed that the facts which give arise to cause of action will decide the territorial jurisdiction of the case.
CC/14/85 104) (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 417 Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. V/s. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd. - In this ruling it has been observed that it is the discretion of a Court for giving direction to add necessary party or proper party to the Court and this discretion is to be exercised, according to reasons and fair play and not according to vims of the party.
5) II (2014) CPJ 439 (NC) - HDFC Bank Ltd. V/s. Veerbhan Sharma- In this case insurance policy from HDFC Health plus Cardholder was issued by National Insurance Company hence, as per the Hon'ble Commission, National Insurance Company is necessary party to the proceeding.
6) III (2013) CPJ 536 (NC) Shrikant M. Apte V/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India -In this ruling it has been observed that at the end of cooling period of 15 days policy documents became binding on both the parties and contents are also binding on both of them.
7) 2002 (1) CPR 3 (NC) Namita Nigam V/s. Janta Travels - In this case only travel agent was made party to this proceeding and Air India was not joined as party to the complaint. The Hon'ble Commission considered that in absence of Air India being party to proceeding liability cannot be foisted on travel agent.
8) 1995 (2) CPR 140 (Madras) - Vazapadi Ramamuthy M.P. V/s.
NEPC Airlines - In this case the commercial flight was cancelled due to technical problem. The Hon'ble State Commission Madras considered that no negligence or deficiency in service can be attributed against the Airlines.
9) IV (2007) CPJ 117 (NC) - Gargi Parsai V/s. K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines - In this case Complainant failed to discharge onus of proving willful misconduct in respect of damage of baggages and CC/14/85 11 missing of valuables.
10) (2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 463 - Inter Globe Aviation Ltd.
V/s. N. Satchidanand - In this case the delay was caused due to bad weather and want of clearance from ATC Authorities. The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered that compensation cannot be granted for inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant on such ground.
11) (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 66 Ravneet Singh Bagga V/s. M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. - In this case the delay was caused due to verification of visa of Complainant under certain suspicious circumstances. Complainant is not entitled to get compensation for such delay.
12) (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 504 - Godfrey Phillips India Ltd.
V/s. Ajay Kumar - In this case Complainant had filed PIL in respect of alleged unfair trade practice by Opponent. Complainant was neither representing any register consumer association nor he had obtained requisite permission under section 13(6) of Consumer Protection Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered that such PIL cannot be considered.
13) (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 65 - Ghaziabad Development Authority V/s. Balbir Singh - In this ruling it has been observed that for getting compensation under Consumer Protection Act, Complainant must prove that inconvenience has been caused due to malafide and capricious act of the Opponent.
14) (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 668 - Charan Singh V/s. Healing Touch Hospital and Ors. - It is a case under medical negligence. In this case it has been observed that quantification of claim would depend on facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down for the same.
CC/14/85 128) Perused record of the case. On perusal of the same, it appears that, Complainant no.1 had booked tickets for himself and his family members through opponent no.2 & 3 on 01/07/2013. The tickets were booked in the name of complainant, his wife and one son and daughter. The tickets were booked from Mumbai to Washington DC and back to Mumbai. It is the contention of Complainant No.1 that he had paid total amount of Rs.11,25,980/- for the same including cancellation charges of Rs.10,880/- for cancelling his tickets from economy class to business class. It is also the contention of the Complainant No.1 that he had paid amount of Rs.4,124/- and amount of Rs.5,039/- towards insurance. Thus, it is the contention of Complainant No.1 that he has paid total amount of Rs.11,35,143/- to Opponent Nos.1 & 2 and booked tickets for himself and his family members.
9) It is the contention of the Complainant No.1 that while returning back from Washington DC when he had approached at Airport, he learnt first time that his flight from Washington DC to Frankfort is of United Airlines and it is not of Opponent No.1. Rest of the journey of Complainant No.1 and his family members from Mumbai to Washington DC through Frankfort was by the airlines of Opponent No.1. During return journey also the journey of Complainant No.1 and his family members from Frankfort to Mumbai was by the airlines of Opponent No.1. However, the journey of Complainant No.1 and his family members only from Washington to Frankfort was by United Airlines. However, on perusal of copy of ticket produced by Complainant, it has become clear that Complainant No.1 was knowing this fact at the time of purchase of tickets. In the ticket produced on record by Complainants, it is specifically mentioned that journey of Complainant No.1 and his family members from Washington DC to Frankfort is by United Airlines. Hence, contention of Complainant No.1 cannot be accepted that he learnt this fact for first time at the Airport of Washington DC.
CC/14/85 1310) On perusal of record, it appears that, it is the contention of Complainant No.1 that the flight from Washington DC to Frankfort of United Airlines was delayed by 4 hours. Hence, he could not reach in proper time at Frankfort. Hence, the connected flight of Complainant No.1 and his family members of airlines of opponent no.1 from Frankfort to Mumbai was missed by them. On perusal of record, it appears that, it is the contention of Complainant No.1 that thereafter for taking help of persons of United Airlines he had to run from pillar to post and contact number of persons. It caused great inconvenience to him and his family members at Frankfort Airport. It is his contention that after exerting much ultimately the persons of United Airlines had given food passes to him. However, he could not get proper food in the restaurant at Airport for himself and for his family members. It is his contention that, thereafter he was directed to go to the terminal of Air India for going to India. It is the contention of Complainant No.1that when he had gone to Air India terminal, he leaned that flight on which accommodation is made for him and for his family members was not directly going to Mumbai but it was going to Delhi and from there, his alternate arrangement is made in the flight going form Delhi to Mumbai. It is his contention that he had not given both the boarding passes of Frankfort and Delhi and he was directed that boarding passes from Delhi to Mumbai will be given to him at Delhi. It appears that by that alternate flight Complainant No.1 and his family members reached at Delhi. It is the contention of Complainant No.1 that when he had given 2nd boarding passes for going to Mumbai, he learnt that the flight going to Mumbai is not direct flight and it is going via Jodhpur. It is the contention of Complainant No.1 that, if he would have accepted that flight, he would have reached Mumbai late by 15 hours. Hence, he had purchased tickets of flight directly going from Delhi to Mumbai by making expenditure of Rs.39,070/- and thereby came to Mumbai.
CC/14/85 1411) It is the contention of Complainant No.1 that as flight of United Airlines was delayed, he had to face great inconvenience for himself and for his family members at the Airport of Frankfort. It is also his contention that after reaching to Delhi as he has not given accommodation in flight directly going from Delhi to Mumbai, he was required to purchase tickets of direct flight and had to come to Mumbai by that flight. It is the contention of Complainant No.1 that for whatever inconvenience is caused to him and his family members, Opponents are responsible. He claimed total amount of air tickets paid by him to Opponent Nos.2 & 3 of Rs.11,35,143/- from them alongwith amount of Rs.39,070/- which he was required to pay for purchase of tickets from Delhi to Mumbai. For inconvenience caused to him, he has also claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from Opponents alongwith cost of litigation.
12) As per contention of Complainant No.1, it has become clear that, he had purchased tickets for going to Washington DC from Mumbai and returning back from Washington DC to Mumbai from opponent nos.2 & 3 and obtained air tickets from them. As he had purchased air tickets from Bombay in respect of this journey whatever inconvenience is caused to Complainant, Complainant can file complaint in this Commission. Hence, we are of the opinion that this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case and complaint filed by the complainant is tenable. However, as per contention of Complainant No.1 himself, his flight from Washington DC to Frankfort was delayed by 4 hours. This flight was not of Opponent No.1. Complainant No.1 and his family members were travelling by United Airlines from Washington DC to Frankfort. Complainant No.1was knowing this fact at the time of purchase of tickets as in ticket purchased by him it has been specifically mentioned that journey of him alongwith his family members from Washington DC to Frankfort will be by United Airlines.
CC/14/85 15As flight of United Airlines was delayed 4 hours, it could not reach Frankfort at proper time and because of which the flight of Complainant No.1 and his family members for going to Mumbai from Frankfort was missed by them. Hence, it has become clear that because of fault on the part of United Airlines, opponent no.1 could not take Complainant No.1 and his family members from Frankfort to Mumbai. However, for that purpose Opponent No.1 cannot be blamed. It was only due to the mistake of United Airlines. It appears that although Complainant No.1suffered much of the inconvenience at Frankfort Airport ultimately persons of United Airlines had given food passes to Complainant No1 for himself and his family members and had also made their alternate arrangement for coming from Frankfort to Delhi and from Delhi to Mumbai. It is the contention of complainant that although United Airlines had given food passes to him. Food present in the restaurant at Frankfort was not proper. We are of the opinion that for that purpose also Opponent No.1 cannot be blamed and it was only due to mistake of United Airlines. Complainant No.1 and his family members required to suffer for getting proper food at Airport of Frankfort. By alternate flight Complainant No.1 alongwith his family members had ultimately come to Delhi and their further arrangement was made from Delhi to Mumbai by another flight. However, that flight was going from via Jodhpur. Complainant No.1 was not ready to go by that flight as he would have reached late at Mumbai. Hence, Complainant No.1 on his own accord had purchased tickets of Jet Airlines for directly coming to Mumbai from Delhi alongwith his family members. He had taken this journey on his own accord although alternate arrangements of his journey were made by United Airlines. We are of the opinion that, if alternate arrangement made by United Airlines was not convenient to complainant for that purpose also no blame can be given to opponent no.1 and it was caused only due to CC/14/85 16 United Airlines. Considering all these facts, it has become clear that whatever inconvenience was caused to Complainant No.1 and his family members at the Airport of Frankfort and by not properly making their alternate arrangement of travel from Delhi to Mumbai it was due to the mistake on the part of United Airlines and for that no blame can be given to opponent 1. Hence, we are of the opinion that only United Airlines is responsible for the inconvenience caused to complainant no.1 and his family members. Under such circumstances it was incumbent on complainant to make United Airlines as party to this proceeding. However, he has not made them party to proceeding and has not claimed amount in respect of inconvenience caused to him from them. Opponent Nos.2 & 3 had purchased tickets for Complainant No.1 and for his family members as desired by Complainant No.1 and had given the same to Complainant No.1 after obtaining amount of ticket from him. We are of the opinion that as soon as Opponent Nos.2 & 3 handed over tickets of air travel to Complainant No.1 and his family members the role of Opponent Nos.2 & 3 comes to end. They cannot be held responsible for the further inconvenience caused to Complainant No.1 and his family members during the journey.
13) Opponent No.1 had undertaken journey of Complainant No.1 and his family members from Mumbai to Washington DC and during return journey from Frankfort to Mumbai. Complainant no.1 and his family members had traveled by this airline from Mumbai to Washington DC. However, during this travel no inconvenience was caused to Complainant No.1 and his family members. During return journey the flight of Opponent No.1 from Frankfort to Mumbai was missed by Complainants and hence, they could not travel by this airline from Frankfort to Mumbai. Hence, there cannot be any inconvenience to Complainants during this flight from Frankfort to Mumbai. On perusal of air tickets produced by complainants nothing is appearing CC/14/85 17 that Opponent No.l had undertaken journey of complainants from Washington DC to Frankfort. On the contrary on perusal of air tickets it has become clear that Complainant No.1 had booked tickets for himself and for his family members with United Airlines. Contention of Complainant No.1 cannot be accepted that he learnt the fact for the first time at the airport of Washington DC and Opponent No.1 had made this arrangement through code share service with United Airlines. In absence of any evidence in that respect the travel of Complainant No.1 and his family members from Washington DC to Frankfort was undertaken by United Airlines and they were responsible for that journey. Complainants caused inconvenience only because of United Airlines. They had not given proper services to Complainants. However, Complainants have not made United Airlines Opposite as Party to proceeding and filed this complaint only against opponents alleging that they are responsible for the inconvenience caused to him and his family members. Due to the delayed flight of United Airlines further inconveniences were caused to Complainant No.1 him and his family members. We are of the opinion that in respect of inconvenience caused to Complainant No.1 and his family members only United Airlines are responsible. However, Complainant has not made United Airlines as party to this proceeding. We are of the opinion that Opponent No.1 cannot be held responsible for the inconvenience caused to Complainant No.1 and his family members. Hence, we are of the opinion that opponents have not given deficiency in service to Complainants. Hence, Complainant is not entitled to get compensation on that count from Opponents. United Airlines had also made arrangement of food passes for Complainant No.1 and his family members and had also made their alternate travel from Frankfort to Mumbai. If at all inconvenience was caused to the Complainant No.1 and his family members only United Airlines is responsible and hence, Complainant should have made United Airlines party to this CC/14/85 18 proceeding. In absence of the same Complainants are not entitled to get compensation from opponents. Hence, we answer point no.1 in affirmative and point nos.2 & 3 in negative and proceed to pass the following order -
ORDER
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Parties to bear their own cost.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced on Dated 18th September, 2018.
[D.R. Shirasao] Presiding Judicial Member [Dr. S.K. Kakade] Member aj