State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs.Naseema Begum vs Emirates on 29 May, 2008
ORDER CORRECTED ON : BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present : Hon'ble Thiru Justice K.SAMPATH PRESIDENT Thiru Pon. GUNASEKARAN, B.A., B.L., MEMBER-I F.A. No. 555/2005 [ Against OP No.356/04 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North) ] DATED THIS THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MAY, 2008 Mrs.Naseema Begum :: Appellant / Complainant Rep.by her Power of Attorney Holder rep. by Adv. Mr.N.A.Kader Mohideen M/s.S.Sadasivan No.4, St.Xavier Street Chennai : 600 001. Vs. 1. EMIRATES :: 1st Respdt/1st opposite party 1-C/D 12/13, Riaz Garden rep. by Adv. Kodambakkam High Road Mr.P.J.George Chennai : 600 034. 2. Aero Star Travels (P) Ltd :: 2nd Respdt/2nd Opp.Party 769, Anna Salai, Chennai : 600 002. 3. Eurolink Tours & Travels :: 3rd Respdt/3rd Opp.Party No.80, Thambu Chetty Street Chennai : 600 001. O R D E R
K.SAMPATH J.
The complainant in OP No.356/2004 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was follows: - The complainant along with her child proceeded to Dubai from Chennai airport by the flight of the 1st opposite party on 5/9/2003. The journey was booked under PNR BC 2Y5S. The tickets were purchased on 29/8/2003 from the 2nd opposite party through the 3rd opposite party.
The tickets indicated the journey status as OK. The categorisation was under business class. The 1st opposite party though promised to provide a baby cradle in the front row, the facility was not provided. On 3/9/2003 the complainant received a phone call at 3.30 pm from the 1st opposite party seeking to ascertain whether the proposed journey would be performed on 5/9/2003 as fixed already. She answered in the affirmative. On 5/9/2003 the complainant took the child accompanied by their attorney and other family members and turned up at the Chennai International Airport at 7.15 am. She reported at the check-in counter of Emirates.
The person at the counter said that the names of the complainant and her child were not found in the list of passengers.
The complainants father explained to that person that there could be no reason for omitting the names of the complainant and her child when the tickets were okayed. After that the 1st opposite party permitted the complainant and her child to perform the journey. There was a delay of 30 minutes causing great mental agony, strain and stress to the complainant and her family members. The complainant addressed several letters to the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service inasmuch as they made her wait for more than 30 minutes and caused mental agony. The complaint therefore came to be filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation together with interest at 12% p.a.
2. The 1st opposite party filed a version stating as follows: - The complainant and her child did not apparently hold confirmed reservation at the time of checking-in due to the confusion in PNR numbers not tallying with the name and the PNR numbers. The complainant was therefore asked to wait for a while till the seats were available for travel in case of cancellation as the flight was completely booked. The complainant and her son were accommodated in the same flight. There was no deficiency in service. Their wait was very short and the claim was untenable. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.
3. The opposite parties 2 and 3 were called absent and were set exparte.
4. The complainant marked Exs.A-1 to A-12 while the 1st opposite party did not mark any document.
5. The District Forum held that the waiting caused to the complainant was not due to any deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party but it was due to the deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd and the 3rd opposite parties who made bookings under different entries which really caused delay. As per Ex.A-10 the OK status was given to the complainant and her child to travel under flight EK 541 from Madras to Dubai and showed the name as Mrs.Nassemabegum and Mohammed Tariq Ali, infant. But the check list did not tally with the booking created for them both by their travel agent and subsequently the Customer Affairs Officers located the name of Kamil/Nassema Mrs. + infant (BC2Y5S) wherein the history of this booking showed as no show passengers. This had happened as the ticket names and booking names did not match for which the 2nd opposite party had to be blamed and the 1st opposite party could not be put to task. Even according to the complainant the 1st opposite party had taken the case of the complainant on a priority basis and within 30 minutes the complainant was allowed to proceed and board the flight. The District Forum ultimately dismissed the complaint as against the 1st opposite party and granted relief to the complainant as against the 2nd opposite party by directing them to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.
6. The appeal has been filed by the complainant on the ground that relief ought to have been granted against the 1st opposite party and not against the 2nd opposite party.
7. Mr.Sadasivan, learned counsel for the appellant / complainant vehemently submitted as follows: - The District Forum curiously had found the 2nd opposite party alone guilty of deficiency in service extenuating the first opposite party from liability. The District Forum ought to have held that the 1st opposite party too was responsible for the deficiency in service. It was a case of commission and omission attributed to the 1st opposite party that had led to the sufferings of the complainant. The District Forum ought to have seen that the complainant and her child were holding tickets with OK status for travel by flight from Chennai to Dubai. There was no evidence to counter the averment of the complainant even by the 1st opposite party. In response to the letter of the complainants father on 17/10/2003, the officer in-charge of the Customer Affairs at the 1st opposite partys head office sent a letter to him on 2/11/2003 stating that the record as to the confirmation of booking for the complainant and her child could not be traced and in the same breath the said officer had stated that extensive checks had proven negative. The District Forum ought to have drawn inference that the said officer had been making inconsistent and self-contradictory statements. The District Forum should have accepted the case of the complainant that she had received a phone call from the office of the 1st opposite party at Chennai to ascertain whether she would be performing the journey on 5/9/2003 and she responded that she would. The averments in the complaint in this regard were not controverted by the 1st opposite party. This would show that there was no confusion about the ticket number and the name of the complainant and her son. The first name of the complainant Mrs.K.Naseema and the reference to the son of the complainant as infant were clearly mentioned. It was erroneous to contend that the names found in the booking reference and the copy of the ticket were quite different. The District Forum should have reached the conclusion that the history of the booking indicated that the complainant and her son as no show passengers which unerringly proved that there was no error in the booking of the ticket of the complainant and her son. The District Forum erred in recording a finding that the complainant was permitted to board the aircraft inasmuch as the 1st opposite partys services could not be characterised as deficient without realising that the delay of 30 minutes caused to the complainant and her 18 months old son in boarding the aircraft caused mental agony and untold misery. The District Forum ought to have rejected the claim of the 1st opposite party that there was confusion in the names of the passengers. The very fact that they were accommodated in the flight would show that they had confirmed tickets. The 1st opposite party should therefore have been penalised.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st opposite party Ms.K.P.Kiran Rao submitted that the complainant could not have any grievance against the 1st opposite party and if any grievance arose from the order it should be against the 2nd opposite party who should have taken up the matter. The District Forum had rightly found that if at all there was deficiency in service it was only on the part of the 2nd opposite party. It was not for the complainant to dictate terms to the Forum as to what should be the finding. The complainant and her son had travelled as per their schedule by the same flight from Chennai to Dubai and there could be no case of deficiency in service. The problem was due to the booked names and the booking status not getting matched. The District Forum had rightly refused relief against the 1st opposite party.
9. We have very carefully gone through the materials on record and we are satisfied that the order of the District Forum is correct and no exception could be taken to the same. The names on the ticket and the names in the bookings made by the agent differed in the form and there was therefore initial confusion. The tickets were in the names of Naseema Begum/K Mrs and Mohamed Tariq Ali/ Infant while the travel agent made the booking in the names of Kamil/Mrs Naseema Begum and Infant under different PNR numbers. When this was the position, it is not possible to find fault with the 1st opposite party. If they had refused permission to the complainant to board the flight there could be a cause for any grievance against the 1st opposite party. To get a correct picture, the staff at the counter had taken some time and once they found that there was some mistake with regard to the names and that the complainant had confirmed tickets, they allowed her to board the flight. May be, Airlines these days overbook and bounce passengers, receive more fares, but so far as the present case is concerned, such a thing cannot be said to have taken place, particularly when the complainant and her infant had taken the same flight to their destination. We do not find any merit in the appeal.
10. The appeal therefore fails and the same is dismissed.
Pon.GUNASEKARAN K.SAMPATH MEMBER-I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO *Basu\Z\KSJ\airlines*