STATION MANAGER vs DR. K. VANLALZAMI

This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 24.02.2016, passed by the Mizoram State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aizawl (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1 of 2016, Station Manager, Air India vs. Dr. K. Vanlalzami, vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Aizawl, dated 15.12.2015, in Consumer Complaint No. 11/2015, was confirmed.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant, Dr. K. Vanlalzami, is a student at Dr. S. N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, pursuing her M.D. degree. She booked Air India flight no. AI23 for 08.01.2015 with PNR YVW1 for undertaking journey from Lengpui airport, Aizawl to New Delhi. The flight was scheduled to depart at 2.20 pm on 08.01.2015 from Lengpui Airport for Kolkata, from where the passenger was to take flight to Delhi. It has been stated that the said flight was rescheduled for departure at 4.15 pm on that very day, and the passengers including the complainant were duly informed through messages. The complainant arrived at Lengpui airport at 3.15 pm, i.e. one hour before the rescheduled time of departure, but she was told that the counter had already been closed, as the flight was overbooked. As a result, the complainant was prevented from boarding the train from Delhi to Jodhpur of the same date. The complainant was asked by the Air India to arrange her own flight on future date, but following protest made at the spot, she was rescheduled to fly from Silchar on 13.01.2015, saying that no flights were available from Lengpui airport before 20.01.2015. The complainant had to incur extra expenditure for stay at Aizawl and in commuting to Silchar. It has, further, been alleged in the complaint that she was issued an open ticket for travel from Silchar to Kolkata and then to Delhi on 13.01.2015, as a result of which, no seat was allotted to her. She was subjected to harassment by the staff at Silchar and then at Kolkata, as they objected to her check-in, saying that no seat had been allotted to her. The complainant alleged that she was put to a lot of hardship, stress, tension and inconvenience, because of the failure of Air India to ensure that she could travel as per the booking made with them. The complainant sent a legal notice also on 13.02.2015, which was ignored by the Air India. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, claiming an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as damages and compensation.

The District Forum allowed the complaint, vide their order dated 15.12.2015 and held the Air India liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for preventing the complainant from travelling from Lengpui airport on 08.01.2015. Being aggrieved from the order, the opposite party, Air India, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide impugned order. Being aggrieved, the opposite party Air India is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that it was a usual practice on the part of the Airlines to overbook their flights and in the process, some passengers were made to miss the flight, as they could not get seat in the scheduled flight. The learned counsel stated that there were guidelines issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India to provide compensation in such cases. As per some guidelines issued in June 2010, the compensation could be given under clause 3.5.1 and the amount of such compensation varied from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. On a query, the learned counsel stated that they had taken up this plea in appeal before the State Commission, but not before the District Forum.

I have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

The only point for consideration is whether the opposite party, Air India indulged in deficiency of service towards the complainant, for which, they are liable to pay compensation to her. It is a fact admitted by the opposite party, Air India that there was overbooking in the flight scheduled to depart from Lengpui airport on 08.01.2015 at 4.15 pm. Although, the complainant reached the airport at 3.15 pm, she could not be accommodated in the said flight and as a consequence, she had to be accommodated five days later i.e. on 13.01.2015 and that also from Silchar and not from Lengpui. It is quite evident that the complainant, who is a post-graduate medical student suffered huge mental and physical hardship, because of the failure of the airlines to fly her in accordance with the fixed schedule. She had to spend a number of days in Aizawl and then travel to Silchar to take the flight five days later. Further, an allegation has been made by the complainant that she was given an open ticket for travel on 13.01.2015, because of which, she was subjected to avoidable harassment at Silchar as well as Kolkata. This allegation has not been denied by the opposite party, Air India. It is clear, therefore, that the opposite parties were negligent in providing service to the complainant, for which, they were liable to pay suitable compensation to her.

In so far as the guidelines issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation are concerned, it is an admitted case of the opposite party that they never took this plea before the District Forum. Moreover, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, in which a professional student had to wait for as many as five days to get the next flight and that also from a distant place, it is quite apparent that she deserves to be properly compensated. Further, the complainant missed her train also for travel from Delhi to Jodhpur and she had to take another ticket for the said journey. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, I do feel that the compensation awarded to her by the District Forum, duly confirmed by the State Commission is quite appropriate and no change is called for in the same. It is held, therefore, that the impugned order passed by the State Commission and the order passed by the District Forum do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error on any account and the same are upheld.

The present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.