British Airways vs MONA BHOG

VIDE impugned order dated 30. 1. 2001 the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 21,094 to the respondent along with interst at 15% i. e. , 10. 8. 1995 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs. 2,000 on account of deficiency in service, inasmuch as that inspite of having been given a ticket of "ok" status, the respondent was not allowed to board the plane from London to New York and also the maltreatment meted out to her at the airport. Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred this appeal.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondent along with her daughter aged 3 years were holding OK ticket issued by the appellant for 7. 8. 1995 from Delhi to London and for 10. 8. 1995 from London to New York with return journey open, reconfirmed on phone, for flight No. 177 for 10. 8. 1995 and was given boarding card at 13. 30 and asked to go through Gate No. 2 but was denied entry though some passengers placed in similar situation were allowed. As against this, the version of the appellant was that the respondent reached at 1. 30 p. m. whereas the departure time was 1400 hours and to assist the respondent she was guided to immigration, customs and security check and by the time he reached the gate the luggage hold and the doors of the aircraft were closed and an option was given to her to travel by the next flight and re-arrangement was made for her to travel by the following flight.

However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellant admitted in its letter dated 13. 9. 1995 sent to the respondent that at 1400 hours the staff-member-in-charge who closed the baggage-hold and aircraft door omitted to identify the passenger service unit of the departure gate in respect of fact that there were 8 passengers en-route the lobby.

IN similar cases, we have taken a view that whenever a passenger reports for check-in before the departure time of the aircraft it is the duty of the service proider like airlines not only to make announcement on the public address system before taking off in respect of seats which are vacant and the ticket holders of the same have not reported and if any passenger reports at the check-in counter and obtains boarding pass, it all the more, becomes incumbent upon the service provider to ensure that the person who has been issued boarding pass is allowed to board the plane. In order to inculcate standard of efficiency in providing service we have taken a view that the consumer who may get delayed for sometime due to the unforeseen circumstances particularly in view of the traffic situation now-a-days, particularly in the metropolitan towns, no bobdy knows at what point he would be stuck up for hours though he may leave home well in time, that the airlines should permit every passenger who is issued a boarding pass to board the plane.

DEFICIENCY in service on the part of service provider of the kind in question, means: "any fault, imperfection, short-coming or inadequacy in the quantity, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintined by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in purusance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. " On testing the allegations of the respondent on the anvil of the aforesaid definition of "deficiency" in service and finding of facts returned by the District Forum to the effect that in spite of the fact that still there were 8 passengers en-route to the lobby who had been issued boarding pass, still the plane took off, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. However, the interest awarded shall be payable up to the date of this order. Payment shall be made within one month from the receipt of this order.

COPY of order, as per statutory requirement, be forwarded to the parties and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record. FDR/bank Guarantee if any, be released under receipt. Appeal dismissed.