National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Air India vs Prakash Singh And Anr. on 3 December, 2007
Equivalent citations: I(2008)CPJ334(NC)
ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. It is the say of the complainants Shri and Smt. Prakash Singh that they had obtained tickets through their authorised agents M/s. Globe Trotter Pvt. Ltd. for their journey from Delhi-Hong Kong-USA-Seoul-Singapore and back to Delhi. For the return journey they had confirmed booking with Air India in flight No. 411 on June 3, 2002 for the Singapore-Delhi sector which they have decided to prepone to June 2,2002. Accordingly, Shri Mahendra Singh, nephew of complainant No. 1 contacted the office of Air India at Singapore for this preponement, but no request was made for the cancellation of the bookings of 3rd June, 2002. The complainants on their return journey after reaching Singapore on May 27, 2002 made persistent efforts on 28th and 29th May to contact the office of Air India but every time a taped voice was heard stating that all the operators were busy. Their efforts to contact Mr. Son Gupta, the senior-most officer of Air India was in vain. On 29th May, 2002 the 'complainants left for Bali Islands and returned on 1st June, 2002, Soon after they contacted Air India office regarding their seats for 2nd June, 2002 and were told that as the seats were not reconfirmed they have been automatically cancelled by a system on 31st May, 2002 itself and further that seats for June 3,2002 were also cancelled by their representative Mahendra Singh. Air India refused to accommodate them on the flight of June 2nd and forced them to upgrade their tickets from V to 1 class after charging Singapore $ 234 which was paid as there was no alternative. It is alleged by complainants that by cancelling their seats of June 2, 2002 Air India has acted in a negligent manner and this has been done without intimation. Accordingly, they prayed for direction to the District Forum for refund of this sum.
2. The case was contested by Air India and it was submitted that as the passengers are in habit of changing their dates of journey and in order to give transparency in bookings and cancellations/reconfirmations of the seats is a routine practice followed by them and by the airline industry. They further submitted that the representative of the complainant was told to reconfirm the seats 72 hours before the date of journey and as no such request was received the tickets were automatically cancelled on 31.5.2002 for 2nd June, 2002 and seats for 3rd June, 2002 were cancelled by the complainants' representative earlier. Accordingly, they had to charge additional sum for upgradation for the journey.
3. The District Forum held that there is no authority of law with the Air India to cancel a booking if not reconfirmed automatically and therefore, not providing the seats to the complainants on 2nd June, 2002 is a deficiency in service. The District Forum directed the Air India to pay the complainants a sum of Indian rupee equivalent Singapore $ 234 at the rate prevailing on the date of their order dated 27.11.2004 along with 9% interest from 1.8.2002 till realisation with cost of Rs. 2,000.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum Air India filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties partly confirmed the order of the District Forum regarding the refund of the amount but set-aside the order pertaining to the award of interest (c) 9% on this amount.
5. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission Air India has filed this revision petition.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ticket jacket is a contract between the purchaser and Air India wherein it is mentioned as under:
ARTICLED--REFUSAL AND LIMITATION OF CARRIAGE 8.1 RIGHT TO REFUSE CARRIAGE Carrier may refuse carriage of any passenger or passenger's baggage for reasons of safety or if, in the exercise of its reasonable discretion, Carrier determines that; 8.1.3. Such action is necessary because the passenger has failed to observe the instructions of Carrier.
7. The learned Counsel has also brought to our notice the Important Notice "If you break your journey for more than 72 yours at any point, please reconfirm your intention of using your continuing or return reservation. To do so, please take the earliest opportunity to inform the airline office at the point where you intend to resume your journey, but not less than 72 hours before departure of your flight. Failure to reconfirm will result in the cancellation of your reservations(s)". As the passengers did not reconfirm their journey for 2nd June, 2002 the system automatically cancelled their tickets for their journey on June 2nd on 31.5.2002.
8. Mr. Prakash Singh, complainant No. 1 submitted that the return tickets were booked for Singapore to Delhi for 3rd June, 2002 and request was made to preponement for 2nd June, 2002 by e-mail on April 7,2002. This was followed by further e mails but there was no communication received from Air India stating that they had preponed the tickets to 2nd June, 2002 or it was not possible for them to prepone them though their e-mail ID was available with Air India. On the return journey they reached Singapore in the evening of 27th May and tried to contact Air India Office on 28th and 29th May but they only heard the taped statement that all lines are busy, please try after sometime. They departed for Bali islands on the evening of 29th May, 2002. When they returned to Singapore on 1st June they went straight to Air India office to find out the exact status of their tickets, but at the counter they were told that there was no reservation for June 2nd and June 3rd and hence they were forced to upgrade their tickets by paying $ 234 @ Rs. 27.50 per $ as there was no alternative. Copies of the e-mail sent to the Air India have been filed before the District Forum. He summarized the argument by stating that Air India did not inform him or his travel agent or his representative about the cancellation of the journey of 2nd June. This was a unilateral action without applying the commonsense and Air India was unhelpful and discourteous. Mr. Prakash Singh quoted the judgment of this Commission in III (2003) CPJ 12, Air India v. Harpeet Singh where it was held that there was no question of any re-confirmation when travel agent had issued a ticket with confirmed status. Mr. Harpreet was to join university in Sydney on 1.3.1999 for higher studies. We have not been shown any condition requiring confirmation in a case like the present one. We have perused the documents and heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for Air India and the complainant No. 1. The citation supra quoted by Mr. Prakash Singh is not applicable to this case as the learned Counsel for Air India has brought to our notice the Clause 8.1.3 and the Important Notice on the ticket jacket wherein it was stipulated that if the passenger breaks the journey for more than 72 hours at any point he has to reconfirm the onward reservation.
9. Counsel for Air India has not contradicted that they have received e mail from the complainant asking for preponement and that they have not sent any e mail in reply. To a question raised during hearing of this petition learned Counsel for Air India submitted that it is a practice of Air India to get telephone numbers of the complainant to pass on important messages. In this case the important message that they had cancelled the tickets for 2nd and 3rd June was not passed on to the passengers which is against cannons of commonsense. They had neither sent an e-mail nor they contacted the complainants on phone to inform about the same. They have also not contradicted the statement made by the complainant that their lines were busy and tape recorded voice was fed on the telephone on 28th and 29th May at Singapore. This is a clear case of discourteous and unhelpful attitude. Whatever they have printed on the ticket jacket has to be implemented by applying commonsense and due courtesies to implement the same and unless the telephone systems are functioning and there are persons to answer on the other end of the telephone for reconfirmation, the clause mentioned in the ticket jacket cannot be complied with. In this age of globalisation and revolution in information and communication technology Air India cannot expect passengers to rush to their office to pass on a simple information of reconfirmation or cancellation.
10. Hence we held that Air India was deficient in it service. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.