Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AHMEDABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Mankad, President; Dr. R.K. Shah, Member
HITENDA RAMANLAL SHAH & ORS.—Complainants
versus
JAGSON AIRLINES & ANOTHER—Opponents
Complaint No. 521 of 1992—Decided on 7.10.1994
CONSUMER PROTECTION - DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE - AIRLINE - DELAYED AND CANCELED FLIGHTS - MENTAL AGONY, INCONVENIENCE, AND HARDSHIP - COMPENSATION AWARDED - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants, two couples, booked air tickets from Ahmedabad to Kulu and back through the opponent's agent. The departure time mentioned in the tickets was 13.15 hrs. However, when they reached the airport, they were informed that the flight had left at 12 noon due to a change in schedule. The complainants were not informed about the change and had to travel to Kulu by taxi, incurring additional expenses and suffering mental and physical strain. On their return journey, the flight from Kulu to Delhi was canceled without any satisfactory explanation, and the complainants again had to travel by taxi, facing similar difficulties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opponents were negligent in rendering service to the complainants, resulting in deficiency of service. The court held that the complainants were entitled to compensation for mental agony, inconvenience, and hardship suffered due to the delayed and canceled flights.
Issues: 1. Whether the opponents were negligent in rendering service to the complainants? 2. Whether the complainants are entitled to compensation for mental agony, inconvenience, and hardship?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides for compensation to consumers for deficiency in services. The court held that the opponents' failure to inform the complainants about the change in flight schedule and the cancellation of the return flight without any valid reason amounted to deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaint and directed the opponents to pay each of the complainants Rs. 20,000/- as damages and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.
Key Points: - The judgment finds the opponents liable for deficiency of service due to failure to inform about schedule change and cancellation of return flight. (!) (!) (!) - Complainants awarded Rs. 20,000 each as damages and Rs. 2,000 each as costs; total damages and costs specified. [12000037660011][12000037660012] - Proceedings concern compensation for mental agony, inconvenience, and hardship from delayed/cancelled flights under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (!) (!) (!) - The complainants sought recovery of Rs. 4,20,002 plus interest and costs; the court addressed deficiency of service and negligence. (!) (!) - The airline’s staff alleged misbehavior and lack of accommodation to be considered as part of deficiency of service. [12000037660002][12000037660007] - The commission held that part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction since business conducted through an Ahmedabad agent; thus jurisdiction affirmed. [12000037660009]
Mr. Justice R.C. Mankad, President—Complainants are two couples who have filed this complaint for recovery of Rs. 4,20,002/- together with 18% interest for compensation and Rs. 5,000/- for cost and expenses from the opponents on the ground of deficiency of service on their part.
2. Complainants No. 1 and 2 were married on April 21, 1992 and complainants No. 3 and 4 on April 20, 1992. They wanted to go to Kulu Manali for Honeymoon. Therefore, they contacted opponent No. 2 for booking air passage from Delhi to Kulu and from Kulu to Delhi. Opponent No. 2 is opponent No. l’s agent at Ahmedabad. Opponent No. 1 operates airlines. It is not disputed that opponent No. 2 is opponent No. l’s booking agent and is entitled to issue tickets on behalf of opponent No. 1. Opponent No. 2 is alleged to have assured the complainants that opponent No. 1 will render regular and satisfactory services. Complainants relied on this assurance and booked their air journey from Delhi to Kulu on April 26, 1992 and return journey from Kulu to Delhi on May 2 1992. The complainants paid Rs. 16,460/- to opponent No. 1 for the air journey as stated above on April 3, 1992. The opponents charged Rs. 16,460/- from the complainants the detail where of are as follows: —
Processing charges Rs 140.00
Airport Tax Rs. 2168.00
Fuel surcharge Rs. 200.00
Air fare Rs. 13952.00
On confirmation of the tickets the complainants booked hotel accommodation at Manali for the period from April 26, to May 2, 1992 on advance payment of Rs. 10,296/- through Travel Corporation of India.
3. The complainants reached Delhi by train and they reported for air travel to Kulu at Delhi airport. The departure time mentioned in the tickets was 13.15 hrs. on April 26, 1992. The complainants reached the airport before 13.15 hrs. on April 26, 1992 and presented their air tickets at the counter of opponent No. 1. The complainants were, however, informed that Flight No. JA-201 for Kulu had left Delhi airport at 12 noon. When they pointed out to the staff of opponent No. l that the time of departure mentioned in the tickets was 13.15 hrs, they were informed that the time had been changed to 12 noon and the time shown on the tickets was wrong. The grievance of the complainants is that staff of opponent No. 1 at the airport was very rude to them and they did not even offer chairs to sit or glass of water. The complainants requested opponent No. 1’s staff to accommodate them in the next flight. The staff of opponent No. 1, however, refused to give any accommodation or to refund money and told the complainants to go to Kulu by taxi or any other means. Complainants have submitted that they were going to Kulu Manali for honeymoon and they had booked hotel accommodation in advance for short stay from April 26 to May 2, 1992 on advance payment of Rs. 10,296/-, as stated above. However, instead of helping the complainants, the staff of opponent No. 1 misbehaved with them. Complainants gave written notice to the staff of opponent No. 1 but they refused to put signature on copy of the notice in token of having received it. Complainants, therefore, had to go to the city of sending xerox copy of the notice by registered post A.D. The complainant had hired taxi on payment of Rs. 100/- and had also to incur expenditure of Rs. 50/- for posting xerox copy of the notice to the opponent No. 1 by registered post A.D. It may incidentally be mentioned that one of the complainants viz. complainant No. 1 is a practising Advocate.
4. Since the complainants had confirmed hotel booking as stated above, they left Delhi for Kulu by taxi at night. They had to pay taxi fare of Rs. 3,800/- and travel continuously for about 17 hours. According to the complainants they had to pass through dangerous areas of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh where terrorists were active. Therefore, according to the complainants, they were under great mental tension and stress during their journey by taxi to Kulu. They had also to incur
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
