State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. J.L.Roy, Agartala, West Tripura vs Managing Director, Deccan Aviation ... on 4 January, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
TRIPURA
Appeal No.F.A.-14/2010
Dr.J.L.Roy,
S/O. Late Satish Chandra Roy,
Resident of Village - 19, Old Thana Road,
Banamalipur, P.O-Agartala,
P.S-East Agartala,
District - West Tripura. ....
... ... ... Appellant.
Vs
1. The Managing Director,
Deccan Aviation Ltd.,
Now known as King Fisher Airlines Ltd.,
King Fisher House, Western Express
Highway, Vile Parle (East),
Mumbai - 400 099.
2. Hindustan Tours & Travels,
Laxmi Narayan Bari Road,
Agartala, West Tripura.
... ... ... ... Respondents.
PRESENT :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.B.PAL,
PRESIDENT,
STATE COMMISSION
MR.B.K.SHARMA,IAS (Retd),
MEMBER,
STATE COMMISSION.
MRS.D.BAIDYA KHASNABISH
MEMBER
STATE COMMISSION.
1
For the Appellant : Mr.J.Paul,Adv.
Mr.H.Datta,Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr.T.K.Choudhury,Adv
Mr.S.Chakraborty,Adv.
Date of Hearing : 18-12-2010.
Date of delivery of Judgment : 04-01-2011
JUDGMENT
PAL, J, This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9-7-2010 rendered by the District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala in CC-16 of 2008 dismissing the complaint of the appellant.
2. Dr.J.L.Roy, appellant herein, instituted the proceeding before the District Forum alleging that he along with to other family members purchased air tickets from the Deccan Aviation Ltd., the first respondent herein, for air journey from Agartala to Mumbai via Kolkata. The tickets were purchased from Hindustan Tours and Travels, the second respondent herein, the local agent of the Deccan Aviation Ltd.. But the agent had given two separate tickets for journey from Agartala to Kolkata and Kolkata to Mumbai by two different flights of the respondent. The journey commenced on 4-4-2007. The first grievance of the appellant is that the respondent charged Rs.2100/- for extra luggage of 30 kg @ Rs.70/- per kg for the journey from Agartala to Kolkata and again Rs.1400/- for journey from Kolkata to Mumbai. As the journey was on the same day by the same airlines, though by two different flights, the second time extra luggage charge of Rs.1400/- was illegal and arbitrary.
23. The second grievance is that his air tickets were to travel from Kolkata to Mumbai by direct flight. But it was diverted via Hyderabad without any prior information causing thereby a delay of more than two hours at much inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to the appellant.
4. The schedule return journey of the appellant by the same airlines was on 16-4-2007 from Ahmadabad to Kolkata and on 18-4-2007 from Kolkata to Agartala. He wanted to prepone the journey from Kolkata to Agartala from 18-4-2007 to 17-4-2007. He contacted the second respondent over telephone with the request for re-schedule of his journey. But the said respondent regretted due to certain snag in the computer system. The officials of the airlines at Ahmadabad was then contacted for the purpose. The same response came from them also that the computer system was not functional on 16-4-2007. He was, however, advised to approach the Kolkata office of the airlines on arrival there. Accordingly, he reached Kolkata on 16-4-2007 and requested the official of the first respondent to prepone the journey. They agreed on payment of extra charge by credit card only. The appellant had no credit card. He offered cash which was, however, refused. This unusual gesture forced the complainant to cancel the tickets and buy fresh tickets from Indian Airlines for journey to Agartala on 17-4-2007. The grievance of the appellant is that refusal to accept Indian currency by the respondent was illegal and arbitrary causing harassment, inconvenience and monetary loss as the air tickets from Indian Airlines had to be purchased at a higher rate.
5. The learned District Forum held that as the appellant traveled from Agartala to Kolkata and Kolkata to Mumbai by two separate flights and there was no connecting flight though the journey was on the same day, 3 extra luggage charge for the journey from Kolkata to Mumbai was not illegal.
As regards the grievance relating to the journey via Hyderabad the observation of the Forum is that the flight was not suddenly diverted to Hyderabad. It was the usual route. The petitioner did not properly enquire or the agent did not provide sufficient information. This alone does not amount to deficiency in service.
As regards the allegation regarding payment by credit card only, District Forum is of the view that the Deccan authority being a business organization may have their own system for which the passengers can not have any grievance.
Aggrieved by such decision and observation of the District Forum, aforementioned, the appellant is before us with the present appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. We have noticed that the extra luggage charge of 30 kg was Rs.2100/- @ Rs.70/- per kg paid by the appellant at Agartala airport. When at Kolkata again the appellant was asked to pay extra luggage charge he objected on the ground that he was traveling from Agartala to Mumbai via Kolkata by same airlines though aircraft was different and therefore, the luggage could be booked from Agartala to Mumbai instead of handing over the luggage to the appellant at Kolkata. Presumably because of his objection the charge was brought down from Rs.2100/- to Rs.1400/-. There is, thus, an element of arbitrariness. If the rules really required second time booking of luggage the respondent could not be taken a lesser amount. The extra luggage should have been Rs.2100/- @ Rs.70/- per k.g.We have no hesitation to hold that Rs. 1400/- was taken at Kolkata airport arbitrarily for illegal gain. This amounts to deficiency in 4 service. The respondent No-1 is therefore, liable to return Rs.1400/- to the appellant.
8. As regards the grievance that without any prior notice the flight from Kolkata to Mumbai was diverted via Hyderabad causing thereby extra journey of more than to hours to reach Mumbai, we have no materials to examine this issue in the face of clear contention by the first respondent that the normal route of the flight was via Hyderabad only. The appellant could not produce air tickets where the time of arrival at Mumbai was mentioned. From the time of arrival it could be determined whether the flight was direct from Kolkata to Mumbai or the normal route was via Hyderabad only. We, therefore, hold that this grievance remains unsubstantiated.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent read out the relevant rules of the first respondent which clearly provide that air fare could be paid by credit card or by Indian currency. Thus, there was no justification for the officials of the first respondent to refuse Indian currency from the appellant for preponing the journey to Agartala on 17-4-2007. The contention of the said respondent that the appellant did not at all approach for preponing the journey is not believable. As the appellant wanted to prepone the journey he had no alternative but to approach the respondent only. If there was really no refusal by the respondent the appellant would not have cancelled the tickets and buy fresh tickets from other airlines for journey on 17-4-2007. This circumstance eloquently says that there is element of falsehood in the contention of the respondent. Thus, refusal to accept Indian currency by the respondent at the Kolkata airport amounted to serious deficiency in service. This no doubt, caused harassment, mental agony and monetary loss. For this deficiency the 5 respondent is liable to pay compensation to the appellant to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand).
10. In the result this appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. The first respondent shall repay to the appellant Rs.1400/- taken as extra luggage charge and Rs.25,000/- as compensation. The cost of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid in the Legal Aid Account of this Commission. The entire amount shall be paid within a period of one month from today. In default the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of expiry of one month till payment/deposit.
PRESIDENT MEMBER 6