Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ashok Bhan, President and Vineeta Rai, Member
AIR INDIA AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
TARUN SETH AND ANR. - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 1426 of 2009 against Order dated 2.11.2008 in Appeal Nos. 1027 and 1028 of 2007 of State Commission, Gujarat
Decided on : 01-05-2012
Mr. Vikas Soni, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi and Mr. Amit, Advocates, for the Respondent
The airline is obligated to compensate for deficiency in service, and the compensation should be reasonable based on the circumstances and completion of the journey.
Headnote:
Defective Seats - Air Travel - Air India Act, Section 3(1) - Summary: The court addressed the issue of defective seats in business class air travel and the compensation owed to the passengers. The court referred to the Air India Act, Section 3(1) and emphasized the airline's obligation to compensate for deficiency in service. The court ordered the airline to offer business class return air tickets or pay compensation and litigation costs.
Fact of the Case:
The Respondents purchased defective business class air tickets and experienced physical discomfort during their journey. They filed a complaint for deficiency in service and sought refund of ticket amount, compensation for mental agony, and litigation costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Respondents suffered physical inconvenience and mental agony due to the defective seats. It acknowledged the airline's offer of compensation but deemed the compensation ordered by the State Commission as excessive.
Issues: Deficiency in service, compensation for physical and mental discomfort, and refund of ticket amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The airline is obligated to compensate for deficiency in service, but the compensation should be reasonable considering the circumstances and the completion of the journey.
Final Decision: The court directed the airline to offer business class return air tickets or pay compensation and litigation costs to the Respondents.
ORDER
Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member - The Regional Manager, Air India and another (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners ) have filed this revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the 'state Commission') which was decided in favour of Tarun Seth and another, Respondents herein who were the original complainants before the District Forum.
2. According to the Respondents/Complainants they had purchased two business class air tickets for Rs. 2,39,537 + Rs. 3,740 from the Petitioner/Airlines for the return journey from New York to Mumbai and were allotted Seat Nos. l5-J and 15K which were defective since they did not slide or move forward. Respondents immediately complained about this to the Petitioner/Airlines staff and they were assured of a change of seats or upgrade at London but no action to do so was taken nor were the seats repaired. As a result, Respondents had to sit in an upright position throughout their long air journey causing severe physical pain and discomfort. Respondents were provided upgradation of seats only from Delhi to Mumbai but the major part of their journey was under great physical and mental stress. On arrival at Mumbai, Petitioner/Airlines in acknowledgement of their deficiency, offered the Respondents business class tickets for Mumbai-London-Mumbai sector which was not accepted and Respondents requested for tickets from Mumbai-New York with a halt at London. Petitioner/Airlines agreed to provide tickets for Mumbai-New York-Mumbai sector but with no halt in London which was not acceptable to the Respondents who, therefore, requested for refund of business class air fare tickets from New York to Mumbai. Since, Petitioner/Airlines did not accept this request, Respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Petitioner/Airlines be directed to pay Respondents, Rs. 2,39,537 and Rs. 3,704 being the cost of their air tickets along with interest @ 9% per annum, Rs. 8 lakh towards mental agony and harassment, Rs. 5,000 as litigation cost and any other relief as deemed appropriate.
3. Petitioner/Airlines upon being served, accepted that that the seats assigned to the Respondents were defective and unfortunately because the flight was full, alternate seats were not available upto Delhi after which they were upgraded. But Petitioner/Airlines was ready to compensate the Respondents for the inconvenience caused and, therefore, offered them business class tickets from Mumbai-New York-Mumbai which was not accepted. It was not possible to accommodate Respondents' request for a halt in London on this sector because Petitioner/Airlines was no longer operating this flight with a halt in London.
4. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint by citing the principles laid down in a similar case by the State Commission, Maharashtra in Air India v. Vinayak Shreekhande, 2008 (2) CPR 196 (NC), and directed the Petitioner/Airlines to pay Respondents, Rs. 2,43,241 (being the refund of ticket amount) with cumulative interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization and Rs. 10,000 towards mental agony, harassment and litigation cost.
5. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum in respect of payment of Rs. 2,43,241 to the Respondents but directed that instead of cumulative interest @ 9%, Petitioner/Airlines pay a simple rate of interest @ 9% per annum. It upheld the order of the District Forum relating to payment of Rs. 10,000 towards mental agony, harassment and litigation cost.
Hence, the present revision petition.
6. Learned Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Counsel for Petitioner fairly conceded that the seats in which the Respondents travelled were defective and Petitioner/Airlines was, therefore, ready to compensate them for this loss by offering busine
