Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and M. Shreesha, Member
Chairman and Managing Director, Air India Ltd. Airlines and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Gokul Chandra Chakrabarti and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal No.399 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 30/01/2017 in Complaint No. 288/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 5.4.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. I.P.S. Oberoi, Advocate
For the Respondents: In person
IMPORTANT POINTS
The Airline cannot change allotted seats unilaterally.
Non providing wheel chair on request is deficiency in service.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 – Airlines-round trip tickets were purchased by the complainant and sitting arrangement was also agreed by the parties-E-ticket itinerary receipt was issued-wheel chair to the second complainant was also agreed-at Kolkata Airport, the request for issuing boarding pass and accept the checking bags was turned down at the counter on the ground that the said counter was meant for Dhaka flight-though boarding passes were allotted afterwards from the said counter, the seat numbers were changed-no wheel chair was provided at Delhi Airport-OP tendered apology, but refused to pay any compensation – Hence, complaint was filed before State Commission – State Commission allowed the complaint – Hence, appeal – Defence of the OP is that wheel chair could not be arranged due to paucity at Delhi Airport – Though request was made, no confirmation was accorded. So far as change in seats is concerned, it is admitted and plea was taken that it was due to system error. Guidelines issued by the Office of the Directorate-General of Civil Aviation, Civil Aviation Requirements Section 3 – Air Transport, Series ‘M’ Part I Issue II, Dated 1st May 2008 considered.
Held, We hold Air India deficient in service in pre-allotting the seats and then changing the same without any plausible explanation, both in the domestic as well as in the international sector and thereby causing inconvenience to the Complainants. (Para 9)
Further held, change of seats is also deficiency in service.
Further held, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- along with accrued interest thereon shall stand released to the Complainant and the balance amount along with interest accrued, shall be refunded to Air India. However, if the amount deposited by the Appellant before the State Commission along with accrued interest if any and paid/released to the Complainant is less than the total amount payable to the Complainant in that case the Appellant shall pay the balance amount within four weeks from the date of order. The statutory amount deposited in this First Appeal stands transferred to Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. (Para 12)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
M. Shreesha, Member—Aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2017 in CC No. 288 of 2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short the “State Commission”), the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as “Air India”) preferred this Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint in part directing Air India to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the Complainants within 30 days together with costs of Rs.10,000/- with default interest of 8% p.a.
2. Briefly stated, the facts material to the case are that the Complainants purchased round-trip tickets to travel to USA by Air India at a consolidated price of Rs.1,45,396/-. The travel particulars with sitting options were given by the Complainants and agreed upon by Air India and E-Ticket Itinerary Receipt was issued. It is averred that seat No. 10-E and 10-F in Flight No. AI23 for the journey from Kolkata Airport to Delhi and seats No. 20H and 20J in Flight No. AI 127 for the journey from Delhi to Chicago were allotted to them. Those seats were agreed for by the Complainants only to avoid discomfort and inconvenience due to turbulence. In addition a request was made for providing a wheel-chair to the second Complainant which was also agreed upon. It is stated that on 07.05.2014 after reaching the check-in counter at Kolkata Airport, when the first Complainant requested the concerned staff to issue the Boarding Passes and accept the check-in bags, his request was turned down on the plea that the said counter was meant for Dhaka flight. When he pointed out that no such board was displayed in the counter, an argument had followed between him and the concerned check-in staff. It is averred that although the Boarding Passes were issued from the said counter, the seat particulars were changed from 10-F and 10-E to 12-A and 12-B respectively in Flight No. AI 23 and seats No. 52J and 52K were allotted in place of seats No. 20H and 20K in AI 127. As a result of these changes, they were placed in the last row close to the tail end of the flight which had made their life hell as they had to struggle hard to bear with the excessive jerking. It was also pleaded that no wheel chair was provided to the Second Complainant at Delhi Airport which caused extreme and unbearable suffering to her. Both the Complainants had fallen sick and had to suspend their work in the United States of America. An e-mail was addressed to Air India on 05.06.2014 by them seeking compensation for which a reply was received on 29.06.2014 tendering an apology, but refusing to pay any compensation. Hence this Complaint seeking the following reliefs:—
1. Compensation of Rs.31,45,306/- along with damage of Rs.50,00,000/-
2. Interest @ 18% on the amount of compensation and damages/-
3. Litigation costs to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. And
4. Any other relief as would be deemed fit and proper for the ends of justice.
3. Air India filed their Written Version denying all the allegations made in the Complaint. It was averred that the wheel-chair could not be arranged for the Second Complainant at Delhi Airport due to paucity of the same. The changes in respect of the sitting arrangements was on account of a rare system error. It was denied that there was excessive jerking movements as no other passengers except these two Complainants had complained of the same. It was denied for want of knowledge that the Complainants had to cancel all social and religious functions because they were confined to the bed for a month.
4. The State Commission while allowing the Complaint in part observed as follows:—
“First seating arrangement of the Complainants was reshuffled. It was done despite the fact that confirmed seat nos. were allotted to the Complainants at the time of booking. Notwithstanding the OPs have attributed it to technical error, one wonders, when the Complainants pointed out the anomaly to an ai
