AIR INDIA vs Geetika Sachdeva

AIR India, the petitioner/OP has made a feckless attempt against the orders rendered by the fora below. Both the fora below have given the concurrent findings. The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the filing of this complaint before the District Fora was delayed by 72 days. The cause of action has arisen on 06.12.2001, but the complaint was filed in the year 2004. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant did not file the complaint within the period of two years. In support of his case, he has cited few authorities reported in HUDA Vs. B. K. Sood, 2006 1 SCC 164, State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I),2009 2 CPJ 29 , Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., and Anr., 2009 CTJ 951 and a case of this Commission, RP 1113 of 20014, titled HCL Ltd. Vs. Bureau of Indian Standards, decided on 09.01.2015.

HOWEVER , I am of the considered view that these authorities have no application to the facts of this case. To top it all, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the case is barred by limitation. As a matter of fact, the period of limitation has not yet started till the filing of the complaint or even, till now. However, it is essential to discuss the facts of this case before adverting to this issue.

MS . Geetika Sachdeva, the complainant/respondent, purchased an open air ticket from Air India, OP, through its agent International Students Travel Pvt. Ltd., for Delhi -London -Toronto -London -Delhi and she was given a confirmed status. She travelled to Toronto on 09.09.2001 and intended to return to Delhi on 06.12.2001. On 02.11.2001, she informed the Air India of her intention to travel from London to Delhi on 07.12.2001 and in turn she was informed that her ticket was confirmed for 07.12.2001 from London to Delhi by Flight No. AI 120. She boarded an Air Canda Flight from Toronto on 06.12.2001 and reached London from where she was to board the flight for Delhi. However, at London, she was informed that the validity of her ticket had expired and she was denied boarding. She was all alone, was not having sufficient funds to buy another ticket and had to wait for about eight hours at the air port when she met another passenger, named, Dr. Shobit Sinha. Dr. Shobit Sinha had come from Chicago and was also denied boarding on the same ground. She borrowed money from Dr. Shobit Sinha and purchased another ticket by Virgin Atlantic Airways and came to Delhi. Her baggage was allowed by the Airlines - Air India, which was delivered to her after a long delay and she had to pay a sum of Rs.665/ - on 11.12.2001. She filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint, directed the OP -Air India, to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/ - , the price of the Air ticket, along with interest @ 9% p.a., from 07.12.2001, till the date of payment. Compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/ - was also imposed for mental and physical torture and convenience, besides costs of litigation in the sum of Rs.5,000/ -.

THE State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the OP/petitioner.

THE complainant has placed on record, various correspondence exchanged between the parties. Letter dated 28.01.2002 written by Mr.R. Chataula, Assistant Manager, Air India, to the complainant mentions, as under : - "Please refer to your letter dated January 18, 2002, regarding the subject matter. We sincerely regret for the inconvenience caused to you at London Airport and apologise for the same. We are investigating into the matter with our London office and shall revert on hearing from them. You are requested to please bear with us for the meanwhile. Thanking you and assuring you of our best services, always. Yours faithfully, Air India Limited Sd/ - (R.Chataula) Asst.Manager".

There is another letter from Mr. Chataula, dated 13.03.2002, which runs as follows: - "Sub : Compensation Dear Madam, Please refer to our letter No.CMN1/COMP/RPC dated January 28, 2002 regarding your compensation claim.

The matter is still being investigated with our London office. You are requested to please furnish the following information to enable us expedite our findings : - 1. Place of check -in, i.e., Transfer Desk or Check -in Counter on ground level

Photocopy of ticket jacket reflecting flight details

Name or description of check in staff

Copy of Virgin Atlantic ticket".

THE complainant sent her reply on 20.03.2002, wherein she stated that all the documents were furnished. Vide letter dated 09.04.2002, Mr. T.N. Narayanan, Manager -Passenger Relations, Air India, Mumbai, wrote letter to Manager, Headquarters, Air India, Mumbai, with copy to Mr. Chataula, requesting therein to inform the latest status of the case to apprise the Ministry. It appears that the enquiry is still pending and the Air India and the Ministry have not taken any final decision. The claim of the complainant has not been repudiated in so many words. The skimble scamble explanation given by the petitioner/ OP does not go to help the legal proceedings. Even the customary high flown rhetoric about its falsehood is also absent. Consequently, I am of the considered view that the complaint has been filed within time.

SECONDLY , both the fora below have decided the case in favour of the complainant and there lies no rub in condoning the delay, if any, on the part of the complainant.

LAST , but not the least, the Hon''ble Apex Court in a recent case, titled Santosh Goyal Vs. Union of India and Ors., Civil Appeal No.12199 of 2013, decided on 06.01.2014, was pleased to hold, as under : - "On 18.3.2013, the matter was taken up and following order was passed: Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petition. In the notice, it should be indicated that the court is inclined to grant leave, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the District Forum for suo moto exercising power under proviso to Section 24A(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for condonation of 9 days'' delay.

A copy of this order be served upon the respondents along with the notice at the address mentioned in the memo of special leave petition".

"Respondents have appeared. We heard the parties. Taking into consideration the nature of the case, we are of view that the impugned order be set aside and the matter should be remanded back to the District Forum for suo moto exercising power under proviso to Section 24(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and condone delay of 9 days.

In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Forum for exercising its power under aforesaid proviso and to decide the case on merit. The special leave petition stands disposed of".

WE have heard the counsel for the parties. Now, we turn to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Air Canada is not their agent. The complainant should have made it a party. He further argued that Dr. Shobit Sinha was also a necessary party and he should have been made a party in this case. It was also argued that the complainant should have got enough money because an emergency can arise at any time. He contended that the validity of the ticket of the complainant expired but could not elaborate this point.

ALL these arguments pale into insignificance, when one applies his mind to the facts of this case. The complainant had booked an Air India Open Ticket from Toronto -London -Delhi from agent of Air India. There is always an arrangement between Air India and Air Canada for such like flights and most importantly, the counsel for the petitioner could not pick up a conflict with this fact. Again, the facts are the stubborn things. If any omission or commission has been committed by Canada Airlines, the OP can claim compensation from Air Canada. The Air India cannot afford to harass and cause anger, anguish, frustration, sadness to its customers like this. Air Canada or Dr. Shobit Sinha are not the necessary parties at all. Counsel for the petitioner had laid emphasis on peripheral matters instead of touching the heart of the problem. The facts of this case are peculiar, clear and leave no hinge or loop to hang a doubt about it. The complainant was having an open confirmed ticket. Air Canada was clearly informed that if there is any lapse on the part of Air Canada, in that eventuality, Air India is to be held responsible.

AGAIN , it is clear that the complainant was made to pay the amount of the ticket through the nose. This incident highlights the arrogance, highhandedness and despotic attitude of the OP. It is difficult to fathom, why should a helpless lady/consumer take a dallop of injustice when someone else is more powerful. The story extended by the petitioner remains opaque despite explanation. Instead of admitting that they have committed a mistake, the OP has wasted the precious time of the parties and fora for more than a decade in pursuing this hopeless case. The case of the complainant stands proved.

NOW , we advert to the question of compensation. The counsel for the petitioner / OP has cited a judgment of this Commission reported in Original Petition No. 266 of 1996, titled Rajinder Pal Jaura (NRI) Vs. The Secretary, Union of India and Air India through its Commercial Manager, decided on 12.11.2002, wherein it was held that the complainant, under these circumstances, is entitled to USD 300. However, the complainant was also awarded Rs.15,000/ - with interest @ 12% p.a., from 30.08.1997, till payment and was further awarded costs in the sum of Rs.5,000/ - which, in a way, is more than USD 300, as per the Dollor/Rupee rate in the year 1997.

MOREOVER , the State Commission has placed reliance on the Hon''ble Apex Court''s judgment in the case titled Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh, 2004 5 SCC 65, and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum.

THE complainant has been dragged into litigation for about one -and -a -half decade. Consequently, we dismiss the revision petition with costs of Rs.25,000/ -, which be paid to the complainant, by the Petitioner/OP, directly through Demand Draft, drawn in favour of the complainant. The said amount be paid within 90 days'' from the date of receipt of copy of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 12% p.a., after the expiry of the said 90 days, till realisation.