ASHIMA ROY CHOWDHURY vs United Airlines

THE complainants have approached this Commission praying for compensation of Rs. 5,20,000/- alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. THE complainants purchased Airtickets for journey to Norfolk, Virginia and back to Calcutta via. New York and Heathrow Air Ports, London through opposite party No. 3, Travel Agent. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 had a mutual understanding and/or arrangement whereby opposite party No. 1 had taken the responsibility of flying of all passengers of opposite party No. 2 from Heathrow Airport, London to other destinations. As the travel schedule was not finalised the exact dates of return flights were also not finalised and, therefore, kept open. According to the complainants the return tickets were confirmed and as per the schedule the complainants were to board Flight No. 900 of opposite party No. 2 at John F. Kenedy Airport, New York on 10.11.1995 at 6.30 p.m. for their arrival at Heathrow Airport, London on 11.11.1995 at 6.25 a.m. to catch Flight No. 143 of opposite party No. 1 at 9.45 p.m. on the same day for their return journey to Calcutta.

IN accordance with the aforesaid flight Schedule the complainants arrived at Heathrow Airport on 11.11.1995 at 6.25 a.m. to board the flight to Calcutta. On arrival there they were shocked to notice that no seats were reserved in their names though confirmation of tickets for the entire return journey was made. On enquiry they were informed that since the validity period of the tickets had already lapsed no reservation could be made. All the requests of the complainants for reservation of seats fell on deaf-ears and they were met with a curt, rude, callous and unsympathetic attitude. They had no friends or relatives in London and as such they had to bear unbearable mental pain, tension because of being stranded at London Airport. The complainant No. 1 made frantic telephone calls to her relatives and friends in INdia and the United States for help. It was only after a relative of the complainants called from the United States and gave his Credit Card number and thereafter the officials of opposite party No. 1 allowed them to board the flight only 45 minutes before the scheduled departure time. According to the complainants they were in a state of mental shock and agony for more than 12 hours besides facing humiliation and harassment. The complainants demanded compensation from the opposite parties which remained unresponded. Accordingly they have brought this action claiming the aforesaid amount as compensation. Initially the case was instituted against British Airways (opposite party No. 1) but later its name was deleted. The travel agent, viz. opposite party No. 3 does not contest the case. The case is however, contested by the United Airlines (opposite party No. 2) by filing a written version wherein the material allegations contained in the complaint petition have been denied. According to the contesting opposite party the complainants after making due enquiries purchased special (low) fare economic class, ''low season'', excursion tickets (hereinafter referred to as V.L.E. 130) valid only for 130 days instead of the normal full fare ticket. The V.L.E. 130 tickets cost approximately Rs. 47,450/- per adult and Rs. 6,170/- per infant as against a normal full fare ticket which cost Rs. 1,15,000/- per adult and Rs. 11,500/- per infant. The said ticket was valid for 130 days. Since the complainants commenced journey on 28th June, 1995 the tickets bought by them were valid only till 5th November, 1995 and a specific noting to that effect was made on the ticket. So the complainants had to avail the same by 5th November, 1995 and not later.

Towards the end of October, 1995 the complainants for the first time contracted the Washington Reservation Office of opposite party No. 2 with regard to their return journey reservation despite knowing fully well that the tickets purchased by them were valid only up to 5th November, 1995. On 1st November, 1995 the complainants again approached the office of opposite party No. 2 at Norfolk, Virginia and requested to make reservation for travel on 10th November, 1995 on which the date the V.L.E. 130 was no longer valid. The complainants pleaded with the opposite party for extension of validity period of the tickets but the opposite party informed their inability to accede to the request as their tickets were V.L.E. 130 and the fare rules do not permit such extension. They, however, advised the complainants to pay additional difference in the fare so as to book reservation for their return journey.

DUE to persistent request of the complainants and despite the fact that the validity period of the tickets has expired the opposite party as a gesture of goodwill made an exception in the complainant''s case by allowing them to travel on 10th November, 1995 without any extra cost and on the V.L.E. 130. They had also requested the opposite party No. 1 to extend this facility to the complainants in exception of the terms and conditions of the tickets. Accordingly the opposite parties denied that they were in any way liable for the consequences. The complainants however boarded plane on 11th November, 1995 and reached Calcutta safely. It is not disputed that the complainants had booked tickets for their journey from Calcutta to Norfolk and back via London-Newyork under V.L.E. 130 tickets. The said tickets were to remain valid for 130 days only. It was concessional ticket and it costs less as would be evident from the fact that the normal fare is Rs. 1,15,000/- per adult whereas under this concessional rate the cost of ticket per adult was Rs. 47,480/-. The journey commenced on 20th June, 1995. The return journey was of course ''open dated'' but as per the terms and conditions of the tickets they were to remain valid till 5th November, 1995. It is also not disputed that the opposite party No. 2 made special arrangement for their transport from Norfolk to London as a special case making exception to the normal rules as a gesture of goodwill. They on their part requested the opposite party No. 1, viz. British Airways to make exception to the said rules and to allow the complainant to travel from London to Calcutta. It may be noted that the name of the British Airways (opposite party No. 1) has been deleted on the prayer of the complainants as they had no grievance against them. Opposite party No. 2, viz. United Airlines asserts that they had requested the British Airways (opposite party No. 2) to make an exception to the rules so as to allow the complainants to travel to Calcutta from London. The complainants had however, to wait at London Airport for several hours for catching a plane to Calcutta. But the opposite party is in no way responsible for this detention. They had extended the validity period as a gesture of goodwill and to keep fair name in the business and allowed the complainant to travel from Norfolk to London, viz. New York despite the fact that the validity of tickets had long expired. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainants to say that there was deficiency in service on the part of the contesting opposite party. It seems that the opposite party has been unnecessarily dragged to this litigation, even though they had shown their good gesture in providing journey as per schedule. Therefore, we are of firm opinion that the complainants have no case and as-such they are entitled to no relief. For the reasons aforesaid the case fails and is dismissed on contest. Complaint dismissed.