NARENDER SINGH vs Air India Air India Building Nariman

REVISION petition no. 3257 of 2007 has been filed against the order dated 03.07.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh ( ''the State Commission '') in First Appeal no. 513 of 2007 which was against the order dated 19.04.2007 in complaint no. 661 of 2006.

THE brief facts of the case as per the petitioner /complainant are as follows: Complainant/petitioner is a practicing lawyer at Civil Court, Sunam and has visited several countries at various occasions. The petitioner is having a passport bearing no. A 6719635. The complainant/petitioner got sponsorship from his relative, who is living at United Kingdom and so applied for visa for visiting United Kingdom which was granted from 13.07.2006 to 13.01.2007. The complainant/petitioner approached the respondent no. 3 and purchased one ticket bearing no. 098 2630948668 from the office of respondent no. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that the ticket was from Amritsar to Birmingham (United Kingdom- UK) and reservation was confirmed. On 24.07.2006, when the petitioner/ complainant reached at Raja Sansi Airport at Amritsar to board his flight then he was informed by the employees of respondents no. 1 and 2 that his seat is not available. The petitioner/complainant immediately contacted the Manager of respondent no. 3 at Airport but no heed was paid. Thereafter the petitioner/complainant raised objection and then the petitioner was sent through another airlines namely Uzbekistan Airways.

The petitioner is a Sikh Gentleman and it is clear that Hindu meal was requested but due to deficiency of the respondents, the petitioner travelled in Uzbekistan Airways which is a Muslim Airways and beef if also served in the Uzbekistan Airways so the complainant suffered mentally and his sentiments were also hurt. Furthermore the flight of respondent no. 1 and 2 was to leave at 09.55 A M but due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents the petitioner/ complainant could leave only at 12 noon that too in different airways and due to this the petitioner/complainant reached 8 hours late then the earlier schedule.

AS the petitioner/complainant was originally a passenger of respondent no. 1 and 2 so the Uzbekistan Airways had no liability towards the petitioner/complainant and the petitioner/complainant travelled at his own risk. Furthermore, due to Muslim Airways there was a lot of difference in language and the complainant also faced language problem in that airways.

DUE to the efficiency in service provided by the respondents, the travelled route of the petitioner/complainant was also changed and the flight of Uzbekistan Airways had a stay at Tashkent for two hours. It was, therefore, respectfully prayed that the opposite party may be summoned and may be directed to pay: (1) Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service provided by the opposite party/ respondent with 24% interest. (2) Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment to the petitioner/ complainant; (3) Rs.40,000/-as compensation for hurting the sentiments of the petitioner/ complainant; (4) Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses; (5) Any other relief which this Hon ''be Court may deem fit and proper.

Respondents no.1 and 2/ Opposite parties no. 1 and 2 in their written statement have stated that the complainant is not maintainable against the answering respondents as there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondents. The petitioner/ complainant boarded the plane of Uzbekistan Airways on Air India ticket from Raja Sansi Airport, Amritsar to Birmingham on 24.07.2006. The petitioner/complainant and other 15 passengers could not be accommodated in the AI Flight no. 187 from Amritsar to Birmingham. Air India authorities made alternative arrangements immediately for travel of petitioner/ complainant and 15 other passengers by the first available flight of Uzbekistan Airways which operated on the same day on 24.07.2006. There was no deficiency and the Air India made alternative arrangement to carry the petitioner/ complainant from Amritsar to Birmingham by first available flight of Uzbekistan Airways. In view of the prevailing situation, the Airlines do make alternative arrangement for those passengers who can not be accommodated in the flight for which they were booked, due to exigencies and administrative reasons.

THE petitioner/complainant never raised any objection regarding the alternative arrangement. If the petitioner/ complainant had objections to board Uzbekistan Airways, he should have refused to board the alternative flight. The petitioner/ complainant has admitted that he was sent through another airlines namely Uzbekistan Airways. The petitioner/complainant boarded the Uzbekistan Airways plane on the same day along with other 15 passengers. The transfer of 16 passengers was necessitated to ensure that they reach their destination and alternative arrangements were made by Air India authorities at Amritsar Airport itself to accommodate the petitioner/ complainant in the alternative available flight from Amritsar to Birmingham as these passengers could not be accommodated in Flight AI 187. There was no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent. Hence, the complainant is liable to be dismissed. All the International Airlines adhere to the international protocol, conventions and rules in accordance with the guidelines laid-down as per rules. Hence, hurting the sentiments of petitioner/ complainant by the answering respondent is without any base and not maintainable at all. The petitioner/ complainant has not stated any specific occasion or instance of not being served the meals of his choice in his flight from Amritsar to Birmingham by Uzbekistan Airways.

THE petitioner/ complainant travelled via Tashkent and the stay at Tashkent was according to flight schedule of Uzbekistan Airways. It is pertinent to add that all passengers after boarding a specified flight had to abide by the route of the specified flight and no option or choice can be exercised during particular flight. Respondent no.3/ opposite part no. 3 also took preliminary objections by stating that the complaint is bad on account of misjoinder of parties. The opposite party no. 3 has been unnecessarily impleaded in the array of respondents, in spite of the fact that there is no averment of deficiency on the part of the opposite party no. 3. The answering respondent had to incur expenditure on defending itself for no fault on its part and consequently it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special cost of Rs.20,000/-. The District Forum after going through the facts of the case and hearing the counsels for the parties stated as follows: "The liability towards any risk is always covered when one travels by Air. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is not accepted to this effect that the Uzbekistan Airways had no liability towards him and he had travelled at his own risk. The complainant had also not placed on record any evidence showing that there was no liability of the Uzbekistan Airways in which he was accommodated. In respect of the language problem, we feel that the same would always be felt by the passengers in all the airlines. Hurting of sentiments of the petitioner/ complainant being a Hindu Sikh Community, it cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in all the airlines both type of foods are served i.e., vegetarian and non-vegetarian, as per the choice of the passengers. In which way the OPs have been deficient in service have also not been proved. In fact the OPs have done the best under the circumstances by accommodating the complainant along with other 15 passengers by making any alternate arrangement without charging any extra amount. The complainant and other 15 passengers all were accommodated in another carrier to ensure their safe destination/ journey. The OPs have taken the protection under Article 10 of the General Conditions of Carriage - Passengers and Baggage, which reads as below: 10.2 Cancellation, Change of Schedules Etc. If due to circumstances beyond its control carrier cancels or delays a flight, is unable to provide previously confirmed space, fails to sop at passenger ''s stopover or destination point, or cause the passenger to miss a connecting flight on which the passenger holds a reservation, carrier shall either: 10.2.1 Carry the passenger on another of its scheduled passenger service on which space is available or; 10.2.2 Reroute the passenger to the destination indicated on the ticket or applicable portion thereof by its own scheduled service or the scheduled service of another carrier or by means of surface transportation. If the sum of the fare, excess baggage charges and any applicable service charge for the revised routing is higher than the refund value of the ticket or applicable portion thereof, carrier shall require no additional fare or charge from the passenger, and shall refund the difference if the fare and charges for the revised routing are lower.

BY virtue of specific conditions 10.2.1 and 10.2.2 the complainant was accommodated as per rules of the airlines. In these terms, the complainant was accommodated with the next available connecting flight and was safely sent to his destination. No deficiency in service, as such is concerned to be fit to be imposed on the OPs, who in fact had taken due care and caution in taking the complainant and other 15 passengers in the immediately next connecting available flight. Accordingly, with these findings, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs ". Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the counsels for the petitioner/ appellant and after going through the records stated as follows: "It is an admitted fact that appellant (Complainant) had purchased on economy class air ticket being no. 098 2630948668 from respondent no. 3 on 17.07.2006 for travelling from Amritsar to Birmingham on 24.07.2006 through AIR India flight bearing no. IA 187 at 09.55 AM. However, due to certain administrative reasons, appellant could not be accommodated in the aforesaid flight but alternative arrangement was made by Air India and he was put on board on the next available flight of Uzbekistan Airways which was scheduled to leave Amritsar at 12.00 noon on the same day. Thus, there was only two hours delay as appellant left Amritsar Airport at 12.00 noon instead of 09.55 A M. There is no evidence that flight of Uzbekistan reached Birmingham eight hours late. Even it is presumed that flight was late by eight hours then it has not been proved on file that the appellant had suffered any loss or damage. It is not the case that due to late arrival of flight at Birmingham, the appellant had missed some conference, interview or some business contract. It cannot be imagined that the sentiments of the appellant being belonging to Hindu/Sikh Community were hurt as beef was served in Uzbekistan Airways. It was for the appellant to opt for vegetarian food instead of non-vegetarian because in airlines both types of foods are served. Even if he had requested for non-vegetarian food, then he could have asked the airline that beef be not served to him. Appellant had been accommodated in the next flight of another airways without charging any amount extra. Under Article 10.2.1 and 10.2.2 the appellant was accommodated in another airline and there was no deficiency in service on its part. Consequently, there is no force in the appeal and it is dismissed in limine ".

HENCE , this present revision petition. The main grounds for the revision petition are as follows: While rejecting the complaint the District Forum has relied upon Article 10 of General Condition of Carriage/Passengers and Baggage but the said article specifically says that if due to the circumstances, beyond its control carrier cancels/ or delayed a flight, is unable to provide previously confirmed space, fails to stop at passengers '' stop over or destination point or causes the passenger to miss a connecting flight on which the passenger holds a reservation, carrier shall either:-

10.2.1 Carry the passenger on another of its scheduled passenger service on which space is available. From the bare perusal of Article 10 it is clear that section 10.2 will come in motion only when circumstances are beyond control but here in the present case it was very well in the knowledge of the respondents that how many seats they are having and once the confirmed was sold to the appellant then non-providing of seat in the said flight amounts to deficiency of service and the District Forum has failed to interpret the relevant rules and has based its findings on surmises and conjectures, Furthermore, it is not the case of the respondent that the flight was cancelled or delayed and due to this reason the appellant could not be accommodated in the said flight.

The respondents have not placed any material on record to show that what were the circumstances due to which the appellant could not be accommodated in the said flight. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also gone through records. Counsel for the petitioner has given two citations of this Commission (i) First Appeal no. 28 of 2007 - H S Bhatia and Ors vs Indian Airlines Ltd., and First Appeal no. 40 of 2007 Indian Airlines Ltd., vs H S Bhatia and Ors. decided on 21.01.2010 and in RP No. 636 of 2012 - Air India vs Dr Marya Ramasamy and Ors decided on 12.04.2012. The citations produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand.

IT is an undisputed fact that the petitioner purchased an economy class air ticket from respondent no. 3 on 17.07.2006 for travelling from Amritsar to Birmingham on 24.07.2006 on Air India Flight no. 187 which was to depart from Amritsar at 09.55 a m. Petitioner in his complaint has stated that the visit to United Kingdom was sponsored by his relative. He has not mentioned anywhere in his complaint that he was travelling to UK for any specific work or to participate in any specific function. Due to certain administrative reasons the petitioner could not be accommodated in the Air India Flight and alternate arrangements were made by Air India and put the petitioner on the next available flight to UK which was scheduled to leave the same day. Petitioner took the flight without any protest. It is also a fact that the petitioner has not adduced any evidence that the flight of Uzbekistan Airways reached Birmingham eight hours late. He has also not mentioned in his complaint about the loss and damage suffered by him by reaching Birmingham late. The petitioner has alleged deficiency of service primarily on the following grounds: The complainant is a Sikh Gentleman and it is clear that Hindu meal was requested but due to deficiency of the respondents, the petitioner travelled in Uzbekistan Airways which is a Muslim Airways and beef is also served in the Uzbekistan Airways so the complainant suffered mentally and his sentiments were also hurt. Further, more due to Muslim airways there was a lot of difference in language and the complainant also faced language problem in that airways.

In this manner petitioner has sought to agitate racial issues not becoming of an advocate. All the international airlines adhere to the international protocol, conventions and rules in accordance with the guidelines laid down as per rules and hence, Uzbekistan Airways would necessarily to have followed the same with regard to service rendered.

IN view of the foregoing reasons, we find that there is no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of ''Consumer Welfare Fund '' as per Rule 10 A of Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, within four weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation. List on 31st May 2013 for compliance.