Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Atul Vakil, (Judicial Member) and Dr. J.D. Nirmal, Member
INDIAN AIRLINES - Appellant
Versus
AJAY KUMAR CHAMPAKLAL SAKARIA - Respondent
First Appeal No. 521 of 2010
Decided on : 12-10-2017
N.A. Shah, Advocate, for the Appellants; M.U. Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent
The court emphasized the rights of consumers and the obligations of service providers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in addressing complaints related to service deficiencies.
Headnote:
Indian Airlines - Consumer Dispute - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 14(1)(d), Section 14(1)(e), Section 14(1)(f), Section 14(1)(g), Section 14(1)(d), Section 14(1)(e), Section 14(1)(f), Section 14(1)(g), Section 21(b), Section 21(c), Section 21(d), Section 21(e), Section 21(f), Section 21(b), Section 21(c), Section 21(d), Section 21(e), Section 21(f)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including definitions under Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), and Section 2(1)(u), as well as the rights of consumers under Section 14(1)(d), Section 14(1)(e), Section 14(1)(f), and Section 14(1)(g), and the powers of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under Section 21(b), Section 21(c), Section 21(d), Section 21(e), and Section 21(f). The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and their application to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's flight was cancelled due to a strike, leading to additional expenses for a new ticket and hotel stay. The opponent Airlines contested the complaint, claiming no deficiency in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant's incurred expenses were justified due to the cancellation of the flight and upheld the decision of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to award compensation for the incurred expenses and mental harassment.
Issues: Dispute over the cancellation of the flight, the offer of alternative arrangements, and the justification of the complainant's expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the undisputed facts of the cancellation, the complainant's efforts to obtain alternative arrangements, and the justification of the expenses to uphold the decision of the lower forum.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum were confirmed.
ORDER
Atul Vakil, (Judicial Member). - Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redbressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in complaint case No. 643/2008 on 11.2.2010, the appellants have filed this appeal. The appellant is an Indian Airlines. The appellant No. 1 is the Ahmedabad office of the Airlines while the appellant No. 2 is the Mumbai office of the Airlines. As per the appellant, the Indian Airlines is known as National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL). The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were the opponents in the complaint while the respondent/opponent was the original complainant in the complaint. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their original nomenclature in the complaint.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as under:
The complainant had gone through Sharjha by the opponent Airlines and he was having return ticket from Sharjha to Ahmedabad leaving Sharjha on 14.6.2007 at 00.05 hours. The complainant stayed at hotel of the Sharjha on 13.6.2007. After checking out from the hotel, he received telephone from one Mr. Sudesh of the opponent Airlines informing the complainant that due to strike declared by staff of the Indian Airlines, all flights have been cancelled, The complainant had to again try for getting hotel recommendation and with difficulty was able to reserve one room. Thereafter, he contacted Mr. Sudesh and other officers of the opponent Airlines but nobody helped him in providing a seat in any of their flight leaving for India. As per the U.A.E.-Visa rules he had to leave the Sharjha. The complainant had to book a new ticket of Kuwait Airways for going to Ahmedabad-India. It was from Dubai to Kuwait and from Kuwait to India. The complainant had to pay 1025 Dirams for purchasing of new ticket of Kuwait Airlines, 800 Dirams for hotel charges due to compulsory stay over, 200 Dirams for taxi fare, 200 Dirams for breakfast/lunch/dinner, in all complainant had to spent 2,225 Dirams which were equal to Rs. 26,700, The complainant filed complaint claiming expenditure of Rs. 26,700 and Rs. 24,000 for the compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 10,000 for the expenditure for photocopies, faxes and international calls, etc.
3. The opponent Airlines appeared in the complaint and contested it by filing written statement. The main contentions of the opponent Airlines are as under:
The opponent Airlines admitted that flight No. IC-564 leaving Sharjha to Ahmedabad on 14.6.2007 could not be operated due to strike of staff on 13.6.2007 and that only two flights could be operated (i) IC-884, Sharjha to Delhi and (ii) 1C-896 DBX/Delhi. The passengers travelling from Sharjha to Ahmedabad who reported Airport were given an option as per availability of seats on Dubai/Delhi or Sharjha/Lucknow/Delhi flights which were to connect the Delhi to Ahmedabad flight on next morning. The passengers, who had not accepted the option, were offered/hotel accommodation for 24 hours, In all, 26 passengers were transferred through the above said flights and then 20 passengers were provided hotel accommodation. The flight in question was cancelled on 14.6.2007 for the reasons beyond the control of the opponents Airlines. The complainant was requested to obtain refund of the unutilized ticket from Sharjha to Ahmedabad from the Ahmedabad office of the opponent Airlines on producing the original ticket. The complainant was also sent a discharge voucher of Rs. 5,000 with a request to forward the original hotel bill as well as the discharge voucher duly signed so that the opponent Airlines could send a cheque to the complainant. However, the complainant has not accepted the said offer and has filed the complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponents.
4. The learned Forum after considering the submissions and averments made by the rival parties and submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties and the documents produced in the case, part
