Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Jet Airways (India) Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Ethelwad O. Mendes —Respondent
First Appeal No.432 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 14/06/2012 in Complaint No. 6/2010 of the State Commission Goa)
Decided on 12.2.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Nishant Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent: In person
IMPORTANT POINT
Air Canada and Lufthansa Airlines are necessary parties in the case and it is necessary to obtain their version, before taking any decision in the consumer complaint.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986- section 19, 21(a)(ii)- Complainant Ethelwald O. Mendes, who is a practising Advocate, purchased air tickets from an agent M/s. Trade Wings Limited for himself, his wife, daughter and son (4 persons) to travel to Toronto- Baggage was delivered to them after 3 days- complainant and his family members had to undergo a lot of inconvenience as their personal effects, including essential items were all in the checked-in baggage- Air Canada and Lufthansa Airlines are necessary parties in the case and it is necessary to obtain their version, before taking any decision in the consumer complaint- Appeal in hand, is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside.
Held: The main issue that merits consideration in the matter is whether under the code-sharing arrangement, the OP Jet Airways, is to be held accountable for any deficiency in service on the part of the participating Airlines, which in this case are Air Canada and Lufthansa Airlines. In this regard, we had a look at a document called “Worldwide Slot Guidelines,” 8th Edition, English Version, effective from 1 January 2017, published by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). In clause 8.14, entitled “Shared Operations”, it has been stated in clause 8.14.5 as follows:
“The operating airline is responsible for all usage and performance requirements.”
From the above provision, an impression is gathered that the operating Airlines, which in this case were Air Canada and Lufthansa Airlines, when the alleged deficiency in service took place, are responsible for the usage and performance requirement. In any case, for taking a just decision in the consumer complaint at hand, it is absolutely necessary that the version of the operating Airlines should be on record, so that a rational assessment about their deficiency in service, if any, could be made. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is simply based on the version given by the complainant, because in the written statement filed by the appellant Jet Airways, they have simply denied the allegations for want of knowledge. We, therefore, do feel that Air Canada and Lufthansa Airlines are necessary parties in the case and it is necessary to obtain their version, before taking any decision in the consumer complaint. The appeal in hand, is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside, being perverse in the eyes of law, as the same had been made without taking into account the version of the necessary parties. The consumer complaint in its present form is ordered to be dismissed. However, liberty is given to the complainant to file a fresh complaint, if he desires to do so, by impleading the other Airlines as necessary parties. There shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 11 and 12)
Result: Appeal allowed.
This first appeal has been filed under section 19, read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 14.06.2012, passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. 06/2010, vide which, the said complaint filed by the present respondent was allowed and the appellant Jet Airways (India) Limited were directed to provide compensation to the complainant for the alleged deficiency in service made by them.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Ethelwald O. Mendes, who is a practising Advocate, purchased air tickets from an agent M/s. Trade Wings Limited for himself, his wife, daughter and son (4 persons) to travel to Toronto, Canada from Mumbai via London-Heathrow by Jet Airways flight, having arrangements for code-sharing with the Air Canada etc. The journeys were to be performed between 10.05.2008 to 15.06.2008. It is stated that the complainant alongwith his family travelled by Jet Airways flight, 9W 0118 from Mumbai to London and then, on code-sharing flight AC 0859 of Air Canada from London to Toronto. The complainant had booked six pieces of checked-in baggage for the said travel, but on his arrival at Toronto at about 22:00 hrs, the complainant found that his baggage had not arrived. He lodged a complaint with Air Canada, whereupon he was informed that the baggage had not been loaded on the flight from London to Toronto and the said baggage would arrive by the next flight from London to Toronto and would be delivered to their holiday address at Scarborough, Toronto, the next day. It is alleged that the baggage was delivered to them after 3 days. The complainant and his family members had to undergo a lot of inconvenience as their personal effects, including essential items were all in the checked-in baggage. Moreover, they had to purchase clothes and toiletries etc. in emergency. The complainant and his family spent approximately 592.43 Canadian dollars on the purchase of clothes and another 43.04 Canadian dollars for snacks and refreshment. The Airline agreed to provide them only 100 US$ and that money was also to be given at the address in India. The complainant has alleged that during those three days, they were unable to go anywhere and enjoy their holidays, because they did not have any change of clothes etc.
3. The complainant further stated that on their return journey on 31.05.2008, the Air Canada flight was to depart at 0800 hrs. from Toronto for London. They were given the boarding passes without seat numbers at Toronto Airport. However, when they reached the embarkment gate after going through the security check, they were told that the said flight of Air Canada was overbooked and hence, they could not be accommodated in the same. They were made to travel by Air Lufthansa flight to Heathrow – London via Frankfurt on the next date, i.e., on 01.06.2008 and that also in the evening at 18:00 hrs. They were given some vouchers for refreshment etc. but the same were inadequate. The complainant has stated that since they were late in arriving at London, their relative who was a Doctor in Nottingham, could not come to pick-them up and hence, they had to hire two taxis for going from London-Heathrow to Nottingham. The complainant alleged that when their flight reached Heathrow Airport at London from Frankfurt, they found that two pieces of their luggage had not arrived. The said luggage was delivered to them at Nottingham after a delay of 36 hours, causing great harassment/inconvenience to them. On return to India, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party (OP) Jet Airways (India) Limited, but did not get any reply. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP Airlines, seeking directions to them to pay a compensation of Rs.25 lakh alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of th
