Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Thai Airways International
Public Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Subbhaiah Koneru and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2364 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 30/03/2012 in Appeal No. 888/2010 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 15.12.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Aranya Moulick, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Minimum facility expected from OP Airlines is to maintain an effective communication with their passengers on minute-to-minute basis and try to make them comfortable in every possible manner, under given circumstances.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Airlines—Deficiency in service—Airlines failed to inform complainants well in advance regarding prevailing situation in Bangkok about non-operation of flights resulting in a lot of inconvenience and harassment to passengers—Complainants could not proceed with their further schedule due to lack of cooperation on part of OP-1—Vide impugned order, State Commission allowed appeal partly and modified order of District Forum, holding that besides payment of refund of fare for balance part of journey, OPs shall pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- to each of complainants alongwith cost of Rs. 3,000/-—Minimum facility expected from OP Airlines was to maintain an effective communication with their own passengers on minute-to-minute basis and try to make them comfortable in every possible manner, under given circumstances—They should have made arrangements for their hotel accommodation and also provide them necessary transport facilities—As per circular dated 06.08.2010 of DGCA, in case of delay in flights beyond 24 hours, hotel accommodation with meals etc. should be provided to passengers—Even if delay was due to reasons beyond control of Airlines, they could not have avoided their responsibility towards passengers who were stranded at airport due to law and order problem and there was a risk to their security as well—State Commission passed impugned order as per which a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been ordered to be provided to each of complainants in addition to refund of air fare for balance journey—Since complainants have not challenged the order by way of any further appeal/revision petition, there is no reason to enhance amount of compensation allowed by State Commission—Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 3, 5, 9 to 12)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 30.03.2012, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 888/2010, Subbaiah Koneru & Anr. vs. Thai Airways International Public Co. Ltd. & Anr., vide which, while partly allowing the appeal, the order dated 05.05.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad in Consumer Complaint No. 745/2009, filed by the present respondent, allowing the said complaint, was modified.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the two complainants Subbaiah Koneru and Srinivas Rao Bontha booked flight tickets for travel with the opposite party (OP-1), Thai Airways International Public Co. Ltd. through the travel agent, OP-2 Anarkali Travels (P) Ltd. as per the following itinerary:-
1. Travel on 24.11.2008, Hyderabad to Bangkok;
2. Travel on 26.11.2008, Bangkok to Shanghai;
3. Travel on 28.11.2008, Shanghai to Guangzhou;
4. Travel on 01.12.2008, Hongkong to Bangkok.
3. The complainants paid a sum of Rs. 1,47,400/- for the air fare and a sum of Rs. 30,800/- for hotel accommodation as stated in the consumer complaint. The complainants left for their journey as per schedule on 24.11.2008 for travel from Hyderabad to Bangkok. However, they could not undertake further travel from Bangkok to Shanghai on 26.11.2008 due to some law and order problem at Bangkok, which led to the seizure of the airport at Bangkok and subsequent cancellation of various flights. The complainants alleged that the OP-1 Airlines failed to inform the complainants, well in advance regarding the prevailing situation in Bangkok about the non-operation of flights, resulting in a lot of inconvenience and harassment to the passengers. The complainants could not proceed with their further schedule due to lack of cooperation on the part of the OP-1 and for not extending help like providing accommodation, transport etc. The complainants had to make arrangements on their own for their accommodation at high cost and also to make arrangements for their travel to Cambodia, from where they travelled to Kuala Lumpur and returned from there to Hyderabad. The complainants alleged that the OP-1 could not avoid the responsibility to take immediate steps for the safety of the passengers, but on the other hand, they left the complainants to their own fate and at the mercy of the protestors and the mob at the airport. The OP-1 should have made arrangements to move the stranded passengers out of Bangkok. The complainants filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking award of an amount of Rs. 4,78,480/- as the expenses incurred in making alternate bookings and as compensation for mental agony etc.
4. The consumer complaint was resisted by the OP-1 Airlines, by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that this was a case of force-majeure conditions, which were beyond the control of the OP-1. Even then, they took steps to accommodate all the passengers safely, without them being exposed to the protestors. There was not a single incident of any injury or harm to the persons present at the airport. The OP-1 had taken steps to accommodate the passengers at the airport and also to provide hospitality to them. The consumer complaint should, therefore, be ordered to be dismissed.
5. The District Forum partly allowed the consumer complaint vide their order dated 05.05.2010 and directed the OPs to refund the fare collected for the remaining journey/travel, except the fare that was collected pertaining to travel from Hyderabad to Bangkok. The District Forum concluded that the complainants were not entitled for any other relief, as prayed for by them, because the inconvenience and loss suffered was not on account of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the
