SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA vs BRITISH AIRWAYS

THE complainants, both of whom are senior citizens, booked air tickets with the opposite party British Airways for travelling from Delhi -London -Phoenix -London -Delhi from 12.12.2013 to 05.2.2014. According to the complainants, since both of them were unable to walk on foot, they requested British Airways to provide the facility of wheel chair for shifting them from one aircraft to the other aircraft. The Airways was also requested to provide pure Indian vegetarian food to them during the course of the journey. However, when the complainants got down at the Heathrow Airport London from where they were to board another British Airways flight which was to take them to Phoenix, no wheel chair was made available to them. After about half an hour, they were made to sit an electricity operated cart, which took them to an open chill cold platform. After some time, they were shifted to a small waiting room by providing one wheel chair to them, instead of taking them to a proper waiting hall. After they were made to wait for about two hours in that room, the complainants were again shifted to an open platform though the weather at London was really cold and chilly. No wheel chair was provided to them there. Almost similar treatment was meted out to them on the return journey. No refreshments were provided to them at the airport. This is also the grievance of the complainants that the food provided to them during the journey was not worth eating, as a result of which they had to go hungry. Being aggrieved from the deficiency in the services rendered to them by the Airways, the complainants are before this Commission, seeking compensation of Rs.1,10,00,000/ - along with interest.

IN its reply, the opposite party has admitted that the complainants had travelled on its flight from Delhi -London -Phoenix -Delhi. It is also admitted that the complainants had opted for the facility of wheel chair, though it is claimed that the wheel chair was sought only for using at the ramps. It is also admitted in the reply that the complainants had opted for vegetarian -vegan food to them aboard the aircraft. As regards providing of wheel chair at Heathrow Airport at London, it is alleged that the facility was to be provided by Heathrow Airport Authority and not by British Airways. It is stated that the complainants were served breakfast which included eggs, because it was not practical for the crew onboard on verify the booking details from the record of each and every passenger while serving the meals and the complainant Satya Prakash on being asked by the cabin crew had asked for a vegetarian meal, which included eggs. Once the complainants specified that they wished to be served vegetarian meal without eggs, all subsequent meals served to the complainants were egg -free meals. The opposite party has denied the allegation that the complainants were kept waiting for hours at an open platform at Heathrow Airport.

THE complainants have filed affidavit of one of them viz. Complainant No.1 Shri Satya Prakash Gupta by way of evidence, whereas opposite party has filed the affidavit of Mr. Sanjay Soni, Regional Finance Manager having office at DLF City I Gurgaon, by way of evidence. A perusal of the tickets issued to the complainants would show that one of the services, which the opposite party agreed to provide to the complainant Satya Prakash Gupta, was ''meet and assist wheel chair -for ramp''. According to the opposite party, the aforesaid service envisaged providing wheel chair only at the ramps and not throughout the transfer from one aircraft to the other at Heathrow Airport. On the other hand, the complainant Shri Satya Prakash Gupta contended, during the course of hearing, that he had requested for the wheel chair throughout the journey since both the complainants were not in a position to walk and they had no control on the request printed by the system of the Airlines, while issuing the tickets. In our view, it would be immaterial whether the complainants opted for wheel chair throughout the transfer from one aircraft to the other and the system of the airlines printed the request in the manner it appears on the tickets or they had requested for wheel chair only for using on the ramps. A passenger who is to shift from one aircraft to the other aircraft after waiting for many hours at the airport but is unable to walk will need a wheel chair throughout the said transfer, except when he is sitting on a seat provided at the airport. Unless a wheel chair is provided to him immediately on his alighting from the aircraft, he will not be able to reach the waiting room, if there are ramps on the way even if he is able to walk on a plain surface but is unable to climb a ramp. If the journey from the aircraft to the place where the passenger has to wait is say 200 meter long and it has one or more ramps on the way, a person who needs a wheel chair for climbing the ramp but is not provided with the said facility will have no option but to stop on reaching the ramp. Therefore, it would be necessary that a wheel chair is provided to such a person as soon as he alights from the aircraft and the said wheel chair continues to be available to him till he boards the next flight. Such a passenger, while waiting in the waiting area of the airport may have to go to washroom. If he is unable to walk, he will need a wheel chair even for the purpose of using the toilet. It was contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that since there may be a number of persons, seeking to avail the facility of wheel chair, it will not be possible for the airlines or a service provider engaged by them or by Airport authority to provide wheel chair to all such passengers throughout the period they have to wait at the airport till they get to board the next flight. In our view, once the request for a wheel chair is accepted by the airlines, it is under an obligation to provide the service, irrespective of the number of such passengers. The feasibility of providing the facility is to be taken into account, while considering the request, and not thereafter. In the case before us, no wheel chair was provided to the complainant Shri Satya Prakash when the alighted from the aircraft and after making him and his wife wait for half an hour and making them walk for some distance they were made to sit in a cart. Therefore, the airlines, in our view, was negligent in rendering services to the complainants by not providing wheel chair to them immediately on their alighting from the aircraft, making them wait for half an hour and then asking them to walk on foot for some distance.

WE do not find any merit in the contention of the opposite party that providing wheel chair at the airport being responsibility of the Airport Authority and the service provider engaged by it, they cannot be held liable for not providing the said facility to the complainants. As noted earlier, the ticket issued to the complainants clearly shows that one of the services which British Airlines had agreed to offer to them was to provide wheel chair. Even if the wheel chair was to be provided only at ramps, it cannot be said that the carrier was not responsible for providing wheel chair at the airport. The alleged obligation of the Airport Authority to provide wheel chair in terms of the European Union Legislations does not absolve the airline of its contractual obligations to provide the said service to the complainant Satya Prakash Gupta. If the opposite party was not in a position to provide wheel chair to the passenger at Heathrow Airport, it should not accept the request of the complainant in this regard. But once the request was accepted, they had to provide the wheel chair, either through the Airport Authority or the agency engaged by it, or by making their own arrangements.

THERE is no indication in the ticket issued by British Airways to the complainants, that the responsibility to provide wheel chair at the airport has to be of Heathrow Airport Authority, and not of the airlines. The passenger booking with British Airways will therefore be justified in presuming that the wheel chair will be provided to him by the carrier, in terms of the request made by him. Moreover, we do not even know whether the request of the complainant Shri Satya Prakash was duly forwarded by British Airways to Heathrow Airport or not. In the event of having to pay damages to the complainants, the British Airways can, if so advised, proceed against the Heathrow Airport or the agency engaged by them to provide wheel chairs to the passengers, if the said agency, despite receiving the request from British Airways, did not provide the said facility to the complainant.

THE evidence of the complainant Shri Satya Prakash Gupta shows that at Heathrow Airport, they were made to wait for quite some time at an open platform in the chilly cold weather of December. It is well know that the winters in London, particularly in December and January, are extremely cold and chilly. Therefore, if the passengers, particularly those, who are old and even unable to walk are made to wait on an open platform, which is extremely cold, that by itself would be an act of deficiency in rendering services to the passengers. Being unable to walk, such persons cannot even shift from a cold open platform to a covered and comfortable part of the airport. The complainants were travelling from British Airways not only from Delhi to London but also from London to Phoenix therefore, it was the duty of the airlines to ensure that they were comfortable while waiting to board the next British Airways flight from London to Phoenix. It was contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that there are no open platforms on any airport and therefore the deposition of the complainant Satya Prakash Gupta in this regard should not be accepted. We however, find that the opposite party has not filed the affidavit of the person, who took the complainants from the airport to the waiting area or the person who took them from the waiting area to the gate where the flight to Phoenix was boarded by them. No affidavit of any official of British Airways posted at Heathrow Airport has been filed to controvert the averments made in the affidavit of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. No affidavit of any official from Heathrow Airport has been filed to prove that there was no open platform at the said Airport, which is otherwise a very large airport, having a number of terminals, some of them situated quite far from others. In these circumstances, we see no reason to disbelieve the un -rebutted testimony of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta in this regard. We therefore, hold that the opposite party was deficient in rendering services to the complainants by making them wait for hours, on an open platform in the chilly cold weather of London in the month of December.

A perusal of the ticket issued to the complainants would show that they had opted for vegetarian -vegan food during the course of their journey. It is the case of the opposite party itself that the breakfast served to the complainants contained eggs. This is also the case of the opposite party that in International Parlance, vegan meals exclude meat fish, poultry and dairy products. Considering the option exercised by the complainants while booking their tickets, the opposite party ought to have served vegan meals i.e. the meal which was vegetarian and also did not include meat, fish, poultry or dairy products to them. That having not been done, this was yet another deficiency in the services rendered by the opposite party to the complainants. The aforesaid deficiency has to be viewed in the light of the fact that the journey from London to Phoenix is a pretty long journey and both the complainants were senior citizens for whom it would be difficult to manage without having adequate meals. The deposition of the complainant Shri Satya Prakash Gupta shows that when they returned the food served to them, they were served some type of boiled seeds with sweet boiled tomato. There is no evidence to controvert the aforesaid deposition of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the opposite party served only some boiled seeds and sweet boiled tomato to them instead of serving wholesome vegetarian vegan meals, which they should have served, during the course of the journey from London to Phoenix, which lasted about nine hours.

IT was contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that it is not practically possible for the crew to verify the meal preference exercised by each passenger from the record of the airlines and therefore, they verbally ask the passenger as to whether they want vegetarian food or non -vegetarian food. She further submitted that the complainants must have asked for vegetarian food and that is why breakfast containing eggs was served to them. However, the opposite party has not filed any affidavit of a crew member to prove what exactly transpired in the aircraft. There is no evidence of any cabin crew having asked the complainants as to what kind of food they wanted to be served. In any case, considering that the food option available on the flight were more than two, the cabin crew who otherwise ought to have checked the record before serving the food, should have asked the complainants as to whether they wanted non -vegetarian food, vegetarian food or vegetarian -vegan food. Since there is no evidence of any such enquiry having not been made from the complainants before serving breakfast to them, we hold that there was deficiency on the part of the opposite party in serving meals to the complainants aboard the aircraft, during the course of journey from London to Phoenix.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we hold that the opposite party British Airways was deficient in rendering services to the complainants. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the opposite party to pay Rupees one lac each as compensation to both the complainants. If the aforesaid amount is not paid within two weeks from today, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment.