Proxima Steel Forge Ltd vs AIR INDIA LTD

THIS Original Petition has been filed claiming a sum of Rs. 66,30,155/ - as compensation for the loss of business and inconvenience suffered by the Managing Director of the complainant Company due to denied boarding of the plane on a confirmed ticket.

THE Managing Director of the complainant Company, M/s. Proxima Steel Forge Ltd. & Anr. Mr. Rakesh Rathour wanted to attend International Hardware Fair from 3.3.1996 to 6.3.1996 in Cologne to explore the business possibilities of the Company in global market. The Company had incurred certain expenditure, in that regard to have a stall in the Trade Fair. Ticket to visit Cologne with Air India was booked for Sh. Rakesh Rathour, the Managing Director of the Company by paying Rs. 36,420/ - and the ticket was purchased from M/s. Janta Travels, respondent No. 3, indicating passage was routed Delhi -Frankfurt -Cologne London Delhi. The ticket was confirmed. The journey was to start from Delhi on 3.3.1996 at 21.5 p.m. Sh. Rakesh Rathour arrived in New Delhi by the Shan -e -Punjab on 2.3.1996. On his arrival at Delhi, he went directly to the Indira Gandhi International Airport and reported to the Air India Counter for obtaining his boarding card. He was informed to report to the respondent No, 1 again for boarding a flight on another day provided seats, were available on the other flight. Thus he could not visit Cologne and the Company suffered losses. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 66,30,355/ - as under along with interest @ 24% p.a.: (i) Amount paid to ITPO for Membership Rs. 82,440.00 (ii) Cost of the Air Ticket Rs. 36,420.00 (iii) W.T.C.A. Rs. 500.00 (iv) Train Journey charges Rs. 1,000.00 (v) Loss of profit for expected orders Rs. 50,00,000.00 (vi) Loss of reputation of the Company at Cologne for its not showing up Rs. 15,00,000.00 (vii) Cost of samples sent to Cologne, Germany through Unique Courier Service Rs. 9,995.00 Total : Rs. 66,30,355.00

THE matter was contested by the respondents. It is claimed that the respondent had reported late so he could not be accommodated in the said flight. It was an international commercial practice to take additional bookings for a flight to avoid losses due to failure of people to report on time or for ''no shows''. Due to over -booking of the said flight the Managing Director of the complainant. Mr Rathour along with other passengers could not be accommodated on the said flight. Provisions were made for Mr. Rathour to stay at the hotel Le Meridian. Damages, which have been claimed, are highly inflated claims, it was also claimed that Mr. Rathour should not have left his travel till the last day on which he was supposed to be present in Cologne i.e. 3.3.1996. Flights of the Airlines are often delayed due to various reasons and he should have made enough allowance for such a contingency.

WE have heard the parties Counsel at length on each point, which has arisen for decisions. First point relates to expenditure on (i) ITPO Membership (ii) loss of expected profit, reputation and (iii) cost of samples.

LEARNED Counsel for the complainant submitted that these losses are neither remote nor speculative but proximate and, as such, the complainant is entitled to claim these amounts.

ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Bhasin relied upon several judgments in support of his contention that the respondent was not liable to pay anything on these counts. He submits that in similar situation in the case of P. Gopinathan v. The Chairman, Air India, I (1992) CPJ 5 (NC), decided by this Commission wherein the passenger was to give an interview for a job and alleged that he lost his job due to late arrival of the plane at Dubai, the complaint was dismissed on the ground that there was no guarantee the complainant would have got that job, even if he had reached there in time further that the compensation claimed by him was hypothetical. In another case K. Ravindran v. Singapore Airlines Ltd., II (1992) CPJ 536 (NC), it was held by this Commission that denial of issuance of boarding cards to the complainant in that case on the ground of late arrival was justified. It was held further that the findings recorded by the State Commission were perfectly correct and fully supported by evidence and did not call for any interference in appeal.

SIMILARLY , in another case of Dr. Arun Jain v. Thai Airways International Ltd., 2002 (2) CPR 131 (NC) and in M/s. Air France v. M/s. Umik Traders & Anr., the passenger Krishan Kumar could not reach Frankfurt in connection with the Heim Textile Fair in time. Krishan Kumar had also paid a sum of Rs. 31,050/ - towards expenditure. Krishan Kumar reported at the appropriate time for taking the flight. But, he was told at 11 p.m. on 6.1.1991 that the flight was overbooked and that there was no seat available in the aircraft for him. In that case also this Commission observed that this Commission could not overlook the prevalent international practice of awarding compensation in the case of Denied Boarding Compensation. Considering that there was well recognised practice of overbooking in the aircraft, it was observed that this Commission would not say that the appellant was deficient in rendering service, particularly, when Krishan Kumar was given a stay in the Five Star Hotel and also offered compensation of US $ 300.

IN this case in view of the aforesaid discussion considering the facts and law on the point, it is apparent that the claim about the loss of profit for expected orders, Rs. 15.00 lakhs loss of reputation and cost of samples sent to Cologne are matters of speculation in view of the fact that despite their allowing the complainant to board the plane there could be delay in arrival of the plane at the destination due to various unexpected situations, particularly, vagaries of weather and the complainant being new entrant at the global level and might not have succeeded in getting orders. Membership of ITPO did not come to an end by this Cologne Trade Fair Samples sent to Cologne continue to be the property of the complainant and it could not be said to be total loss. As such, no amount could be awarded in this respect to aforementioned items. It is further notable that in Rajinder Pal Jaura (NRI) v. The Secretary, Union of India and Air India, O.P. No. 266 of 1997, this Commission observed that ''admittedly, no amount of compensation till this date has been awarded to the complainant. There was no justification for the Air India to withhold payment of Denial Boarding Compensation (DBC) even if the complainant had not asked for it. Since it is the practice, unless agreed to otherwise to give DBC, in our view Air India should have offered US $ 300 on 30.8.1997 itself. But then while denying boarding to a confirmed ticket holder on the aircraft, Air India takes shelter behind the international practice of over -booking, it should also follow the international practice of paying DBC''.

AS regards claims regarding to other items and amount paid for ticket, train journey charges, since in this case complainants M.D. could not go to Cologne and he could not avail the benefit of the ticket the complainant would certainly be entitled to the cost of Air Ticket of Rs. 36,420/ -, Rs. 1,000/ - towards expenses iincurred by him towards journey charges plus an amount equivalent to US $ 300 as on 3.3.1996 payable to passengers off -loaded from US -bound flights.

IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint only to the extent of Rs. 36,420/ -, the cost of ticket plus Rs. 1,000/ - towards expenses incurred by him to undertake journey plus an amount equivalent to 300 US $ as on 3.3.1996 with interest @ 9% from the said date. Complaint stands decided accordingly. Complaint disposed of. -