MOHINDERJIT SINGH SETHI vs INDIAN AIRLINES

THIS appeal has been preferred by Sh. Mohinderjit Singh Sethi against the order dated 19.9.2000 in Complaint Case No. 904 of 1996 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [For short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II].

BRIEFLY stated the facts are quoted as under : The appellant/complainant, Mr. Mohinderjit Singth Sethi, Senior Advocate, Resident of House No. 155, Sector 9-B, Chandigarh bought 5 confirmed tickets for himself and his family members from respondent/opposite party, Indian Airlines for the flight operating from Jammu to Srinagar scheduled on 24.6.1994 and from Leh to Chandigarh for his return journey on 2.7.1994. The appellant/complainant has averred that at Leh on 27.6.1994, when he inquired about the return flight scheduled for 2.7.1994, he was informed to his utter shock that there was no flight from Leh to Chandigarh on 2.7.1994. However, there was a flight from Leh to Jammu on 2.7.1994 and from Leh to Chandigarh on 1.7.1994, but these were fully booked due to which appellant/complainant and his family could not be accommodated. The appellant/complainant has alleged that he along with his family members had to undergo a lot of tension and to run from pillar to post to make alternative arrangements for return journey. The appellant/complainant has further averred that he could manage to get two seats each from Air Force and Army quota with the help of some Defence Services Officials. The appellant/complainant had to travel by taxi on payment of Rs. 3,500/- and the tickets had to be returned to the local office at Leh and three tickets were issued for journey from Leh to Jammu. The appellant/complainant has also averred that vide his letter dated 20.10.1994, he explained all the hardships and inconvenience faced by him and his family and asked the respondent for adequate compensation. On 12.12.1994, the respondent informed the appellant/complainant by a letter that the entire matter was being investigated and that he will be informed in due course of time. On 1.2.1995, the respondent/opposite party explained by a letter addressed to the appellant/complainant that the schedule of flight was changed from 2.7.1994 to 1.7.1994 due to change in temperature. The letter also mentioned that the appellant/complainant''s name was put on the waiting list and he was provided out of turn ticket from Leh to Jammu on 2.7.1994. The appellant/complainant has termed it as incorrect and challenged the veracity of the same. The appellant/complainant also apprised the Managing Director that subsequent to 22.6.1995 [actually it should be 22.6.1994, the date on which confirmed tickets were issued to the appellant/complainant]. There has been no change in the schedule of flights operating in the sector. But the false pleas are being put forward to make it appear as a technical matter beyond the apprehension of a layman. The appellant/complainant has prayed to be compensated suitably as due to aforesaid circumstances the entire holiday of theirs was wasted in arranging the return tickets which could be possible after undergoing a lot of inconvenience and harassment. The appellant has further stated that but for the help rendered by the Defence Forces Officials he and his family which included a child, would have remained stranded there and undergone further harassment and incurred additional expenditure. The appellant has also alleged that the behaviour of Airlines Authorities at Leh was utterly callous and unhelping. The appellant/complainant has claimed Rs. 2 lacs as compensation for the above mentioned harassment, inconvenience and deficiency in service apart from the price of the tickets. The case cited as C. Paul Das & Anr. v. East West Travels and Trade Links & Ors., II (1997) CPJ 412, has been brought on record wherein the Kerala State Commission had awarded compensation of Rs. 37,000/- as the respondents were held deficient in issuing O.K. tickets without arranging confirmation tickets from Air India. The respondent/opposite party in reply, raised the preliminary objection and has taken the plea of lack of jurisdiction as the entire cause of action happened at Leh and no part of it accrued at Chandigarh. Hence, the Forum at Chandigarh could not be invested with the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The respondent/opposite party has averred that the complainant was at Leh when the revised schedule became effective and the difference in the price of tickets was also paid at Leh as desired by the appellant/complainant, hence Chandigarh Forum lacks the territorial jurisdiction. Further, the respondent/opposite party has also taken the plea of bar of limitation as the journey was performed on 2.7.1994 and the complaint stood filed on 11.7.1996, which attracts the bar of limitation of 2 years as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondent/opposite party has also taken the plea that the change in the schedule and timings of the flights are binding on all the passengers including the appellant/complainant. Since the Rules and Regulations and fixing of schedules are outside the purview of Consumer Redressal Agencies, the Forum has no right or jurisdiction to inquire into the legality or otherwise of the same. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on that account itself. The respondent/opposite party has also prayed that the complaint should be dismissed on account of non-joinder of Leh office which was a necessary party to the cause of action. Since the Leh office has not been impleaded, the complaint is vitiated on that account. On merits, it has been submitted that the flight which was to be boarded by the complainant and his family was pre-poned due to change in temperature and not due to any deficiency on the part of respondent. The respondent/opposite party has submitted, inter alia, that with the sincere efforts of Station Manager, Indian Airlines, Leh, the appellant and his family were accommodated in the other flight and they have challenged the version of the appellant/complainant that the tickets were arranged by the Officers of the Indian Armed Forces. In fact the Station Manager of Indian Airlines at Leh arranged four seats, out of turn, for the complainant and his family in the additional flight and since the complainant preferred to travel from Jammu to Chandigarh by taxi, he was reimbursed the taxi fare of Rs. 3,500/- from Jammu to Chandigarh as a goodwill gesture. The respondent/opposite party has explained that, it is clearly mentioned on the schedule of each and every flight and the necessary Rules and Regulations pertaining thereto it is mentioned that the flights timing schedule is ''Subject To Change Without Notice'' and binding on all the intending travellers. The Rules and Regulations of respondent/opposite party since framed under Air Corporation''s [transfer and undertaking and repeal ordinance passed by the Parliament of India and promulgated by President of India] are of uniform binding. A copy of one of flight timing schedule has been brought on record. The respondent/opposite party has further denied any deficiency in the service or any harassment to the complainant on the plea that he was accommodated out of turn on the next available flight, refunded the differences in the price of air tickets and allowed Rs. 3,500/- spent by him as the taxi expenses from Jammu to Chandigarh. The respondent has brought on record the case of Indian Airlines v. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay, I (1991) CPJ 206 (NC), wherein the National Commission had allowed the appeal of Airline Authorities and set aside the order of State Commission awarding compensation as the delay in the flight and consequent inconvenience could not be attributed to negligence on the part of Airline Authorities. Since the respondent/opposite party has performed his part of service with due diligence except for the change in schedule which was beyond the control of the respondent/opposite party, so no cause of action lies against it and consequently, no compensation needs to be granted and has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

The appellant/complainant has also filed a rejoinder dated 11.5.1998 wherein he has reiterated the allegations in the complaint. The appellant has replied to the plea of lack of jurisdiction with the explanation that the opposite party has an office at Chandigarh and as such this Forum at Chandigarh is competent to entertain the complaint. The appellant has also disputed the contention of respondent/opposite party that the schedules of flight operating in this Sector (Chandigarh to Jammu and Leh) were revised between 22.6.1994 and 2.7.1994. The complainant has also clarified that his grievance lies primarily on the point that he was wrongly issued confirmed booking tickets for the day when there was no scheduled flight on that day and it is case of clear deficiency on the part of the respondent/opposite party. The appellant/complainant has also stated that respondent/opposite party has no unbridled powers to cancel the schedule of flights without sufficient cause and adequate notice. The appellant has also taken the plea that the Leh office of the respondent/opposite party is not a necessary/proper party.

THE appellant/complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit in support of his contentions while the opposite party has filed the affidavit of Sh. Kashmiri Lal, Station Manager, Indian Airlines, Sector 17, Chandigarh. THE District Forum-II in its order dated 19.9.2000 held that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in services on the part of opposite party as the revision in the flight schedules were permissible within the powers given to the respondent/opposite party under the Regulation subject to which the tickets were issued to the passengers including the appellant/complainant. Further, the District Forum-II also came to conclusion that since the appellant/complainant reached his destination in time without suffering any kind of loss except for a minor change brought about in the journey that instead of travelling directly from Leh to Chandigarh by air, he travelled by air till Jammu and thereby travelled by taxi, the fare of which was paid by the opposite party. Further, the District Forum-II held that since without the active association and help rendered by the Airlines Authorites at Leh the complainant could not have been accommodated on the alternative flight. Thus, he has not suffered due to any deficiency on the part of respondent/opposite party and the complaint was dismissed without any order as to costs. The cases cited by both the appellant and respondent in support of their respective contentions are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. A perusal of complaint, the reply and other documents brought on record and after hearing the appellant in person and the Counsel for the respondent this Commission is of the opinion that the respondent has been deficient in services insofar as in issuing a confirmed booking ticket on the day when there was no scheduled flight and the contention of appellant does have merit. A perusal of the impugned order brings us to the conclusion that the District Forum-II has not been able to appreciate the facts of the case inasmuch as the main grievance of the appellant is not regarding cancellation of the flight on the day due to any reason beyond the control of Airlines Authorities and also any challenge to the powers of the respondent to frame the Rules and Regulations by the respondent Corporation or effect change in the schedule of flights due to any technical reasons, but the deficiency lies in the fact of issuance of a ticket on a day when it was known that no flight was operating on that day. Further, the respondent has not been able to show through any record which was in their possession to prove that on the disputed day the flight was cancelled due to change in temperature and not as alleged by the complainant. In the absence of non-production of the relevant record the plea of the appellant is amply corroborated. Further, the District Forum-II has not been able to appreciate the inconvenience undergone by the appellant/complainant and it held that since the appellant reached back for his work on the scheduled day, hence there is no harassment and inconvenience undergone by him. This Commission is of the considered opinion that the important point in determining the deficiency of the respondent does not lie in the fact whether the appellant reached back on time but he could reach back only after undergoing so much harassment and inconvenience without any fault of his for which he should have been adequately compensated. Due to these reasons, we hold the respondent liable to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards the compensation and harassment undergone by the appellant/complainant in addition to Rs. 2,000/- quantified as costs of litigation. The impugned order of the District Forum-II is set aside and the appeal is accepted. The respondent is directed to pay the above said amounts within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed with costs.