Regional Manager Air India vs Tarun Seth

THE Regional Manager, Air India and another (hereinafter referred to as the ''Petitioner '') have filed this revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the ''State Commission '') which was decided in favour of Tarun Seth and another, Respondents herein who were the original complainant before the District Forum.

ACCORDING to the Respondents/Complainant they had purchased two business class air tickets for Rs.2,39,537/- + Rs.3,740/- from the Petitioner/Airlines for the return journey from New York to Mumbai and were allotted Seat Nos.15-J and 15K which were defective since they did not slide or move forward. Respondents immediately complained about this to the Petitioner/Airlines staff and they were assured of a change of seats or upgrade at London but no action to do so was taken nor were the seats repaired. As a result, Respondents had to sit in an upright position throughout their long air journey causing severe physical pain and discomfort. Respondents were provided upgradation of seats only from Delhi to Mumbai but the major part of their journey was under great physical and mental stress. On arrival at Mumbai, Petitioner/Airlines in acknowledgment of their deficiency, offered the Respondents business class tickets for Mumbai-London-Mumbai sector which was not accepted and Respondents requested for tickets from Mumbai-New York with a halt at London. Petitioner/Airlines agreed to provide tickets for Mumbai-New York-Mumbai sector but with no halt in London which was not acceptable to the Respondents who therefore, requested for refund of business class air fare tickets from New York to Mumbai. Since, Petitioner/Airlines did not accept this request, Respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Petitioner/Airlines be directed to pay Respondents, Rs.2,39,537 and Rs.3,704/- being the cost of their air tickets along with interest @ 9% per annum, Rs.8 lakhs towards mental agony and harassment, Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost and any other relief as deemed appropriate. Petitioner/Airlines upon being served, accepted that that the seats assigned to the Respondents were defective and unfortunately because the flight was full, alternate seats were not available upto Delhi after which they were upgraded. But Petitioner/Airlines was ready to compensate the Respondents for the inconvenience caused and therefore, offered them business class tickets from Mumbai-New York-Mumbai which was not accepted. It was not possible to accommodate Respondents '' request for a halt in London on this sector because Petitioner/Airlines was no longer operating this flight with a halt in London. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint by citing the principles laid down in a similar case by the State Commission, Maharashtra in Air India Vs. Vinayak Shreekhande - 200(2)CPR 196 (NC) and directed the Petitioner/Airlines to pay Respondents, Rs.2,43,241/- (being the refund of ticket amount) with cumulative interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and litigation cost.

AGGRIEVED by this order, Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum in respect of payment of Rs.2,43,241/- to the Respondents but directed that instead of cumulative interest @ 9%, Petitioner/Airlines pay a simple rate of interest @ 9% per annum. It upheld the order of the District Forum relating to payment of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and litigation cost. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Counsel for Petitioner fairly conceded that the seats in which the Respondents travelled were defective and Petitioner/Airlines was, therefore, ready to compensate them for this loss by offering business class return tickets for the Mumbai-New York-Mumbai sector. However, Respondents insisted for a halt in London which is not possible since Air India has ceased to operate the flight in this sector with a stopover in London. Counsel for Petitioner further stated that keeping in view the fact that Respondents had completed their journey, the order of the State Commission to refund the entire ticket amount was not justified. Petitioner/Airlines was however, ready to pay the Respondents a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation in full and final settlement of the matter.

COUNSEL for Respondents on the other hand stated that the Fora below had taken into account all the facts of the case including the serious deficiency in service caused to the Respondents who are senior citizens with medical problems and awarded them reasonable compensation by directing the Petitioner/Airlines to refund them the entire ticket amount with interest @ 9% as also Rs.10,000/- as costs. Under the circumstances, the monetary settlement now offered by the Petitioner/Airlines was not commensurate with the deficiency in service and the physical and mental agony and harassment caused to Respondents. We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and have gone through the evidence on record. There is no dispute that the Respondents on their return journey from New York to Mumbai were allotted two seats in the business class which were defective because of which the Respondents had to travel in an upright position which is obviously uncomfortable, particularly in such a long air travel. It is also not disputed that Petitioner/Airlines could not offer them alternate seats only because the flight was full right upto Delhi after which they were upgraded. We further note that the Petitioner/Airlines had offered Respondents business class return tickets for the Mumbai-New York-Mumbai sector as compensation for the inconvenience caused to them. Petitioner could not offer them the tickets for a flight with a halt at London because Petitioner/Airlines no longer operated a flight with a halt at London. It was, therefore, not reasonable on the part of the Respondents to insist on a Mumbai-New York-Mumbai flight with a stoppage at London. However, since Respondents admittedly suffered physical inconvenience and mental agony because of defective seats on a long flight, Petitioner/Airlines is bound to compensate them for this deficiency in service. We are of the view that the compensation ordered by the State Commission is on the higher side keeping in view the fact that Respondents had travelled and completed their journey and Petitioner/Airlines could not remove the deficiency for reasons beyond their control. The order of the State Commission is, therefore, set aside and instead we pass the following order which in our view would meet the ends of justice in this case: (i) In the first instance, Petitioner/Airlines is directed to offer in writing to Respondents, business class return air tickets on the Mumbai-New York-Mumbai sector within one month from the date of receipt of this order. (ii) In case Respondents refuse the offer or fail to respond within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such offer, Petitioner/Airlines should pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation in full and final settlement and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost within a period of four weeks thereafter. (iii) In case the above amounts are not paid within the above specified time, the entire amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order of the District Forum till realization. The revision petition stands disposed of on the above terms.