MANAGER, AIR INDIA LTD. vs SAHEED RAFEEK

THE opposite parties in O.P. No. 88/1999 on the file of the District Forum, Thiruvananthapuram are the appellants before us. Respondent in this appeal filed the complaint claiming damages of Rs. 21,013/-. According to the complainant on 6.5.1997 he bought a ticket with return ticket for travel in the Air India from its agent at Oman on payment of Rs. 25,000/-. For his return on 11.7.1997 he reported at the Air Port in time but he was turned back saying the flight was overbooked though ticket was confirmed. Due to the delay in travel he had incurred various expenses totalling Rs. 21,013/-. Hence sought redressal.

IN the version filed by the opposite party before the District Forum, it was stated that the flight was overbooked, complainant was off-loaded along with few other passengers but they were given accommodation and arrangements were made for their travel in other Airlines on the next day itself. But the complainant refused to go by next day flight as he wanted to go by direct Air INdia flight. Such direct flight was available on 16th only and the complainant travelled on that date. Hence no deficiency on their part. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that during the period of 5 days complainant suffered loss and difficulties and awarded an amount of Rs. 7,650/- under different heads.

Aggrieved by the said order, the above appeal is preferred. It is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant firstly that the complainant was late in reporting otherwise he would have got seat in the particular flight, secondly that alternate arrangements had been made for all off-loaded passengers the next day and were offered hotel accommodation on that day, but complainant refused to avail the above stated facilities, thirdly that he wanted to travel only by Air India direct flight to Muscot.

ADVERTING to the first contention the substance of the case of complainant is that he reported at the Air Port on 11.7.1987 on time but refused a seat on ground of over sale, and without considering the urgency of his travel; later gave a certificate stating that he could not be accommodated on that particular flight due to ''Cover sale'', Ext. P4 is a certificate dated 11.7.1997 issued by Assistant Manager, Air India, Trivandrum Air Port certifies that the complainant could not be accepted for Flight A1, 701/11 JUL TRV/MCT due ''over sale''. Hence the first point of late reporting is clearly an after-thought, hence not acceptable. As regards the 2nd point learned Counsel for appellant contended that 35 passengers were off-loaded and alternate arrangements had been made and 34 passengers except the complainants availed the facilities and performed the journey next day itself. Appellant further stated that over-booking upto 20% is a well-established practice of all the Airlines to avoid flights going light. On certain occasions confirmed passengers will have to be off-loaded, then seats are provided on "first come first served basis"; and this practice is not an unfair trade practice.

IN this context our attention is drawn to the observation of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras in Dr. Mrs. Lalitha Kumar v. British Airways, 1992 (2) CPR, wherein Hon''ble State Commission observed : "The capacity of passenger in every flight is limited and when tickets are issued to prospective passengers; the availability of seats is verified and only if seats are available a confirmed ticket is issued, otherwise only a ''wait-listed'' is issued and the passenger has to take his chance if and when there is any cancellation or confirmation."

Referring the above stated passage West Bengal State Commission in Anil Kumar Sanyal v. Jet Airways & Ors., III (1997) CPJ 500=1998 (1) CPR 269, observed that "the ratio of the above case is that if a confirmed ticket is issued by an Airways it is presumed that seat will be available to the passenger concerned and that sudden denial of the berth in the Airways is a deficiency in service". As regards the reason for off-loading Ext. P3 states "It is a common industry practice to overbook flights to a certain extent. This is because, very often, people who have confirmed reservations decide not to travel do not cancel their bookings with the airlines resulting in many seats going light, thereby resulting in loss of revenue (Emphasis added). Much explanation is not necessary in this context regarding object of overbooking which as stated above is to avoid loss of revenue to the opposite parties. When profit making is the motive, it has all the incidents of a business transaction; in such cases profit and loss are part and parcel of a transaction. Loss or profit could not be taken as a defence for causing injury to the customers. We see the explanation given by the opposite parties for off-loading the complainant is not satisfactory to defend the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, in our opinion after giving confirmation in an OK ticket since the opposite party off-loads the complainant/passenger at the time of boarding the flight is an unfair trade practice.

AS regards the third contention that alternate arrangements were made and complainant refused to avail the same. Complainant in his deposition as P.W. 1 specifically states that no offer of alternate arrangement on the next day flight was offered to him, further he deposes that he never insisted to travel in the direct flight in Air India. Further complainant adds that when seat was refused on 11.7.1997 he waited at Air Port till 7.30 p.m., again he reported at the Air Port on 12.7.1997 at 7.30 a.m., then also seat was not given to him. The above stated facts when looked into along with the letter dated 7.12.1998 from the complainants employer certifying that he was expected to report back to school on 12.7.1997, would lead us to a conclusion that he would have made all efforts to get a seat and to perform the journey, so as to report at the office in time.

IN the light of the above stated finding of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties only remaining question is quantum of compensation. District Forum calculated wage loss at Rs. 2,150/- for 5 days, Rs. 500/- as sundry expenses and Rs. 3,000/- for mental agony and harassment along with Rs. 2,000/- as legal fee, complainant produced Ext. P6 showing the loss of pay from 12.7.1997 to 16.7.1997 of Rs. 1,020/- and Ext. P7 series showing the expenses incurred for purchasing medicines, telephone calls made, etc. Further on consideration of a complaint from the complainant opposite party also agreed to honour the expenses and loss of salary on production of necessary certificates. For mental agony and harassment District Forum allowed Rs. 3,000/- which is not on the higher side. We are satisfied that the quantum of compensation arrived at by the District Forum are not unreasonable and arbitrary. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the same. As stated above we find no ground to disagree with the order of the District Forum. Thus we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.