NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
Radha Kinkari Kejriwal —Petitioner(s)
versus
JET Airways (India) Ltd. and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2194 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 28.3.2013 in Appeal No. 319/2011 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 13.2.2017

IMPORTANT POINT
Airlines do indulge in making over-booking in flights so as to ensure that seats in flights do not go vacant in event of certain passengers not showing up at appointed time.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Airlines—Deficiency in service—Denial of boarding pass despite having ticket—This was an over-booked flight— Complainant deserves to be compensated in accordance with declared policy on the subject for compensation under ‘Denied Boarding Category’, as applicable for said flight, leaving from Heathrow Airport, London—She had to spend an additional sum of Rs.83,292/- for booking an alternative air ticket with Air India flight—Complainant deserves to be given compensation to the tune of Rs.83,292/- for additional money spent by her for boarding alternative flight— Complainant/petitioner is entitled to be provided a compensation equivalent to 600 Euros, as well amount spent on purchasing additional ticket i.e. Rs.83,292/- alongwith 9% interest.

       Held: The facts and circumstances on record establish beyond any doubt that this was an over-booked flight. As per the version of the Airlines, three passengers had already volunteered to opt out of the flight and had been sent to the Hotel accommodation. As per the final version given by the OP Airlines, although the said volunteers had left the Airport, the duty officer M.S. Pommi noticed that two seats were available and she did make efforts to provide the boarding pass to the complainant. However, according to the OPs, two other passengers who had reached earlier to the complainant were accommodated against those two seats. It is evident therefore, that the complainant deserves to be compensated in accordance with the declared policy on the subject for compensation under the ‘Denied Boarding Category’, as applicable for the said flight, leaving from the Heathrow Airport, London. As per the instructions issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi vide their letter no.23-15/2016-AED dated 1.8.2016, clause 3.2.2, under the heading, ‘Denied Boarding’, a maximum sum of Rs.20,000/- could be given to the complainant. However, as per the guidelines applicable for the European Union as obtained from the website, i.e. www. citizensinformation.ie/en/travel, a compensation of Rs.600 Euros is to be given in a ‘Denied Boarding’ case, if the distance to be covered is more than 3500 kms. Since the flight in question was to start from the Heathrow Airport for Delhi, the complainant shall be entitled to a compensation of 600 Euros for denied boarding.

        In addition, since there is no evidence on record that the OP Jet Airways made efforts to arrange for her, a seat in any alternative flight, it is clear that she had to spend an additional sum of Rs.83,292/- for booking an alternative air ticket with Air India flight, AI-188. The complainant deserves to be given compensation to the tune of Rs.83,292/- for the additional money spent by her for boarding the alternative flight. The citations quoted by the petitioner, namely, Royal Jordanian Airlines Vs. Nanak Singh (supra) and Randhir Singh vs. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers (P) Ltd. (supra), C Prasad Bhat vs. Britsh Airways (Original Petition No. 168 of 196 dated 28.11.2002 make it clear that adequate compensation has to be paid to the passengers in the case of ‘Denied Boarding’. In the citations given by the respondent, Dr. Arun Jain Vs. Thai Airways International Ltd. (supra), the passenger in question had reached the Airport late and by that time, the check-in counter had been closed. The passenger demanded a sum of Rs.35 lakhs as compensation. It was held that the Airlines was not at fault in that case and the complaint was dismissed. However, the facts of the present case are different, in the sense that two passengers were checked-in by the OP Airlines in the said flight after the complainant had reported at the Airport. The order made in Dr. Arun Jain Vs. Thai Airways International Ltd. (supra) is therefore, not applicable in the present case, In the case, K. Nagarjaih and others vs. Indian Airlines and another (supra), the passengers reached the Airport late due to the break-down of the Army vehicle. The Airlines directed them to travel by executive class on payment of the difference in amount and subsequently, the extra amount charged was ordered to be refunded by the State Commission. This Commission did not find any justification to accept the revision petition in question. In the case, Bhartiya Sanskriti Sansthan vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. and another and National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (formerly : Indian Airlines Ltd. and others vs. R.K. Agarwal and others (supra) also, the facts of the cases are not applicable in the present case.

       From the foregoing discussion, it is held that the complainant/petitioner is entitled to be provided a compensation equivalent to 600 Euros, as well the amount spent on purchasing the additional ticket i.e. Rs.83,292/-. This amount shall be payable by the OP Airlines to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. It is further directed that the said amount shall be paid by the OP Airlines within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the Airlines shall have to pay interest @ 12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. for the entire period.

        (Paras 11 to 13)

       (B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o)—Airlines—Deficiency in service—Airlines do indulge in making over-booking in flights so as to ensure that seats in flights do not go vacant in event of certain passengers not showing up at appointed time—This practice causes a lot of hardship and inconvenience to passengers who are left out from their scheduled flights despite fact that they had confirmed reservation for flight—Policy to take care of such passengers and make arrangements to book them in alternative flights in shortest possible time, is opaque and no clear-cut guidelines are available on the subject—Matter needs to be studied in detail by Director General, Civil Aviation, Government of India, and a rational policy needs to be evolved so that harassment/inconvenience to passengers left out from over-booked flights is reduced to minimum possible.

       Held: As a matter of general observation, it may be stated that the Airlines do indulge in making over-booking in the flights, so as to ensure that the seats in the flights do not go vacant, in the event of certain passengers, not showing up at the appointed time. This practice causes a lot of hardship and inconvenience to the passengers who are left out from their scheduled flights, despite the fact that they had confirmed reservation for the flight. The policy to take care of such passengers and make arrangements to book them in the alternative flights in the shortest possible time, is opaque and no clear-cut guidelines etc. are available on the subject. The matter needs to be studied in detail by the Aviation Regulator, that is, the Director General, Civil Aviation, Government of India, and a rational policy needs to be evolved so that the harassment/inconvenience to the passengers left out from the over-booked flights is reduced to the minimum possible. (Para 14)

       Result: Revision Petition dismissed.