ANIL PREM NATH SHARMA vs AIR INDIA LTD

I.A.NO.1755 OF 2015

We find no ground for recalling the order imposing cost. The application is dismissed.

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.63 OF 2006

The complainant, who at the relevant time was working as a Radiologist on contract basis with Hofuf National Clinic in South Arabia, booked a return ticked for travelling from Dammam to New Delhi and back. When the petitioner reported at the Airport for travelling from New Delhi to Dammam on 16-06-2006, a boarding ticket was issued to him. However, he was not allowed to travel, on the ground that the ticked issued to him had been cancelled since he did not reconfirm the return journey at least 72 hours before the commencement of the journey, as per the booking rules of the opposite party Air India. The case of the complainant is that since he could not reach South Arabia on 17-06-2006 he lost the contractual job in which he was engaged at that time. The complainant is, therefore, before this Commission seeking compensation amounting to Rs.1,55,00,000/- from the opposite party along with the cost of litigation.

The complaint has been opposed by the opposite party Air India on the ground that as per the booking rules, all out bound and in bound passengers to the Gulf countries were required to reconfirm their return ticket 72 hours prior to departure time of the flight. According to the opposite party since the complainant did not confirm the return journey the ticket issued to him was cancelled on 30-06-2006. As regards issue of boarding card to the complainant it is stated in the reply that another person namely Mr. Anil K. Sharma was also scheduled to travel on the flight on which the complainant had booked the return ticket and by mistake occurring due to similarity of the names and PNR numbers, PNR No. of Mr. Anil K. Sharma being H7MEK and that of the complainant being H7MET, the ground staff of Air India issued the boarding card of Mr. Anil K. Sharma to the complainant. When the mistake was realized the complainant was not allowed to board the plane.

Though the opposite party Air India Ltd. has claimed that as per the booking rules applicable at the relevant time the passengers traveling to and from Gulf countries were required to reconfirm their journey at least 72 hours before the scheduled time of the flight, no such rule has been placed on record. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the aforesaid requirement was printed on the jacket containing the ticket issued to the complainant and he is ready to produce a copy of the said jacket if so permitted. However, in the reply filed by the opposite party there is no averment that the jacket containing ticket delivered to the complainant carried a stipulation requiring him to reconfirm the journey at least 72 hours before the scheduled time of the flight. In the absence of such an averment in the reply we cannot allow the respondent to place the copy of the aforesaid jacket on record at this stage when the complaint is pending for last nine years. This is more so when the complainant vehemently disputes having received any such jacket along with ticket issued to him.

Since the respondent has failed to prove the alleged requirement of reconfirming the booking at least 72 hours before the scheduled time of the flight we have no hesitation in holding that preventing the complainant from undertaking the journey for New Delhi to Dammam on 16-06-2006 was an act of deficiency in the services rendered to him by the respondent. Moreover, even if, we presume that the booking for the return journey made by the complainant was cancelled on account of his failure to reconfirm the journey, the respondent Air India ought to have at least intimated him well in time that the ticked issued to him had been cancelled on account of his failure to reconfirm the journey. Failure to give such an intimation to the passenger, in our opinion, would be an act of deficiency in the services rendered to him.

The next question which arises for our consideration is as to how much amount should be awarded to the complainant as compensation. Though the case of the complainant is that he lost contractual job in South Arabia on account of his inability to reach there on 17-06-2006, there is no documentary evidence to prove that he lost the job on account of his having failed to return on duty on 17-06-2006. The complainant has not placed on record any document to show the period for which leave was taken by him for the purpose of visiting India. He has not placed on record any certificate or other documents from the employer, evidencing termination of his services on account of his failing to return for duty on 17-06-2006. In order to establish the plea taken by him the complainant was required to prove that (i) he had taken leave which was to expire on 17-06-2006, (ii) he did not get an alternative flight which would have enabled him to reach South Arabia on 17-06-2006 and (iii) his services were terminated on account of his failure to report for duty on 17-06-2006. In fact the appointment letter filed by him does not disclose even the name of the employer. Therefore, the compensation to the complainant cannot be computed on the assumption that he lost his job in South Arabia on account of the ticket issued to him having been cancelled and his having not been allowed to board the plane on 16-06-2006.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the opposite party Air India to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation within four weeks from today. The aforesaid amount shall not carry any interest if payment is made within four weeks from today. In the event of the opposite party failing to make payment within that time it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. The amount of ticket, if already not refunded to the complainant, shall also be refunded to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The complaint stands disposed of.