AIR INDIA vs REEMA SAWHNY

THIS appeal has been directed by opposite parties against order dated 21/9/2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), whereby complaint of the respondent (complainant) was accepted with costs of Rs. 3,500 and appellants (opposite parties) were directed to pay Rs. one lakh as compensation on account of harassment, agony and mental suffering, etc. Appellants were directed to comply with the order within two months, failing which they were held liable to pay aforesaid amount with interest @ 9% from the date of order till payment.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Mrs. Reema Sawhny, respondent (complainant) was permanent resident of house No. 119, Sector-10, Chandigarh. However, after her marriage, she settled in USA and kept on visiting India off and on for meeting her parents and relatives. She and her infant son Aryan Sawhny had come to India in November, 2006 and booked Air India flight No. AI-310 for their return journey from India to USA (Delhi to Gaum via Hongkong for 21/1/2007. The journey from Delhi to Hong Kong was by Air India and from Hong Kong to Guam by Continental Airlines and she was having confirmed tickets issued by Air India. She had again got reconfirmed tickets 72 hours before the commencement of the journey from Air India office in Sector-17, Chandigarh (appellant No. 3 ). The printout of reconfirmed tickets is Annexure C-1. The flight was to leave Delhi at 2215 hours on 21/1/2007. It was further averred that on the appointed day, she along with infant son in her lap reported at 7. 30 p. m. and stood in queue for check-in. However, when her turn came she was told by the person managing the counter of Air India that they could not board the flight despite having confirmed tickets as the flight had been overbooked and she was told to make some alternative arrangement. She pleaded with the person concerned at the counter that she had confirmed tickets and further she was to get the next connected flight from Hong Kong for onward journey to Gaum (USA) by Continental Airlines for which she had confirmed tickets and she had a infant child in her lap, should be allowed to travel in Air India flight No. 310 but her request was not acceded to. However, after much argument, she and her infant child had been put on Air India flight No. 315 to Mumbai leaving around 12 O''clock on 21/1/2007 for onward journey by Air India flight No. 358 to Hong Kong via Bangkok. The confirmed tickets of Air India flight No. 310 were kept by the officials of Air India and the respondent was issued boarding pass for herself and her infant son for Air India flight No. 315 from Delhi to Mumbai and for Air India flight No. 358 to Hong Kong via Bangkok. The boarding pass for Air India flight No. 315 was retained by the officials of Air India on completion of the journey. The boarding pass for Air India flight No. 358 and copy of the luggage receipts collectively are Annexure C-2.

It was next averred that the flight which was to leave Delhi for Mumbai for onward journey to Hong Kong instead of leaving on scheduled time of 12 O''clock left around 1:15 a. m. on 22/1/2007 and thereafter the aircraft at Mumbai had to be changed. The flight No. AI-358 which was to go via Bangkok to Hong Kong also reached very late at Hong Kong and she was to go to her cousin''s house in Hong Kong for some rest but could not go as there were only 3-4 hours left for the continental flight and she had to wait at the Hong Kong airport along with her small infant in her lap.

ALLEGING deficiency in service, the complaint was filed. Opposite parties (appellants) contested the complaint and filed written reply. They admitted that respondent (complainant) and five other passengers could not be accommodated in the Air India Flight No. AI-310 on 21/1/2007 from New Delhi to Hong Kong and they made alternative arrangement to carry the respondent and five other passengers by immediate next available Air India flight on the same day within two hours and complainant and her infant son boarded Air India flight No. 315 from New Delhi to Mumbai and another flight No. 358 from Mumbai to Hong Kong at 4. 25 hours on 22/1/2007. They also stated that respondent was not citizen of India but permanent resident of USA and was not competent to file the complaint. They further stated that respondent was holding confirmed tickets but reported at the check in counter of Air India at about 7. 30 p. m. for the flight No. AI-310 and could not be accommodated but alternative arrangement was made and as such there was no deficiency on their part, so, the complaint should be dismissed.

THERE is no dispute about it that the respondent (complainant) is a citizen of India and she is holding passport as citizen of India and her husband is posted in USA in Citibank and for this reason, she had been residing with him in USA. She held Indian passport, whose copy is Annexure C-5. Thus, she is competent to file complaint being an Indian citizen. Moreover, Consumer Protection Act,1986 does not state that it applies only to Indian citizens. It is an admitted fact that Reema Sawhny respondent (complainant) and her infant son aged about two years were holding confirmed tickets for Air India flight No. AI 310 for their journey from India to USA (Delhi to Guam) via Hong Kong for 21/1/2007. In fact their journey from Delhi to Hong Kong was by Air India and from Hong Kong to Guam by Continental Airlines and they were having confirmed tickets of both the flights. She even got reconfirmed the tickets before 72 hours of the commencement of the journey from appellant No. 3 as is clear from the printout Annexure C-1. Admittedly flight No. AI 310 was to leave Delhi at 10. 15 p. m. on 21/1/2007. She along with her infant son reported at check- in- counter of Air India at 7. 30 p. m. i. e. about three hours before the departure of the flight. Hence, it could not be stated that they reached late and counter had already been closed and as such she was deprived to travel by that flight. The only reason assigned by the appellant is that the flight was overbooked and as such she could not be accommodated in Air India flight No. AI-310. There is no evidence that she reached Air India counter late when the staff had already closed the counter. There is neither affidavit of any responsible official of Air India, nor it was mentioned on the tickets that she had come late. Apparently for no reason she was not allowed to board the flight despite having confirmed tickets. It is true that she was accommodated in the other flight No. AI 315 from New Delhi to Bombay leaving at 23. 55 on 21/1/2007 and further she was to take another flight No. 358 from Bombay to Hong Kong via Bangkok. Certainly this amounted to harassment as she had to shift to other flight at Mumbai with infant child in her lap and luggage. In the authority of National Commission in case titled Dr. Arun Jain v. Thai Airways International Limited, II (2003) CPJ 201 (NC)=2002 (2) CPC 418, there is mention about European Union Counsel Regulations (EEC) 295 of 4th February, 1991 which tells about common rules for denied boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport. It talks about Articles 4 and 6 according to which minimum compensation is to be paid if a passenger had been denied of boarding the aircraft for which he/she was having confirmed tickets. In the present case no compensation was paid to her in cash, nor, there was any agreement to pay compensation. There was also no evidence that during the stay at Delhi airport or Bombay airport she was looked after well. The above said authority is not applicable to the present case. In the above said authority, the Air India had well looked after the passenger. We can well imagine the plight of a young lady having in her lap two years son left high and dry in spite of confirmed tickets. We could also imagine the difficulties faced by her. In such circumstances grant of compensation of Rs. one lakh is not excessive but is on the lower side. They had overbooked the flight than the capacity of air craft, so the officials of Air India are to be blamed for the mess created by them.

IT is not mentioned anywhere that the reporting time of passengers would be such and such and closing time of the check-in-counter would be such and such. Therefore, we find that Air India is wholly deficient and there is no merit in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.