Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sham Sunder, President, Neena Sandhu and S. Jagroop Singh Mahal, Members
KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD. - Appellant
Versus
LATA SIKRI - Respondent
First Appeal No. 293 of 2011
Decided on : 09-11-2011
Mr. Y.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that airlines are obligated to compensate passengers for deficiencies in service, such as overbooking and denial of boarding, as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and DGCA guidelines.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Airline Passenger Rights - DGCA Guidelines - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 14(1)(d), Section 21] - The court discussed the overbooking of flights by airlines, the denial of boarding to a passenger with a confirmed ticket, and the resulting mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the passenger. The court also highlighted the DGCA guidelines permitting overbooking and the obligation of airlines to compensate passengers for such deficiencies in service.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant was denied boarding on a flight despite having a confirmed ticket, leading to mental agony and physical harassment. The airline's offer of an alternative flight and a complimentary ticket was refused by the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the airline's overbooking and subsequent denial of boarding amounted to deficiency in service, causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the airline's overbooking and denial of boarding constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the airline's overbooking and denial of boarding constituted deficiency in service, and the offer of a complimentary ticket by the airline was an admission of their deficient act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the order of the District Forum, directing the airline to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered.
ORDER
Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member - This is an appeal filed by the appellant/OPs against the order, dated 26.9.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 603 of 2010 vide which it allowed the complaint in the following manner:
"From the above detailed analysis of the entire case, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint must succeed. So, we accept the complaint and decide the same in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. The OPs are directed to issue a complimentary return ticket to the Complainant [as agreed], on any domestic flights operated by them. OPs are further directed to pay Rs. 30,000 to the Complainant, jointly and severally, towards compensation for physical harassment, as well as mental agony caused to her, along with Rs. 10,000 as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the OPs, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which, they shall pay the awarded amount along with penal interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 4.10.2010, till the date of realization, apart from cost of litigation i.e. Rs. 10,000."
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant booked Air ticket for Bidar via Hyderabad of Kingfisher Airlines in flight No. IT-802 dated 30.5.2010 through Airpak Travels, Chandigarh, which was scheduled to take off at 09.25 from Delhi and was to arrive at Hyderabad at 11.35 hrs. She also booked the return ticket of 3rd June, 2010 from Hyderabad to Delhi and Delhi to Chandigarh in flight No. 9W 2258 and 9W 733 of Jet Airlines consecutively. It was stated that at the Airport the OPs issued boarding pass to all her male colleagues but she was denied the issuance of boarding pass. The complainant made request to the OPs to issue her the boarding pass but to no effect and the flight took off. It was further stated that, ultimately, the boarding pass of another Airlines i.e. Spice Jet, was issued, which was scheduled to depart in the late hours at 15.45 hrs. and was to arrive at Hyderabad at 18.00 hrs. She was given in writing that the car would be provided by Hyderabad Airport Authority for Bidar. It was further stated that the Airport authority provided her a taxi but the driver of the said car took her to a wrong direction and took 6 hours to reach the destination which caused a lot of fear and insecurity to her. The complainant wrote a letter, to this effect, to the Kingfisher Airlines and they regretted the inconvenience. They offered the complainant complimentary return ticket on Kingfisher Airlines which could be used for any of their flights on domestic route. Despite harrowing experience, the complainant did not want to drag the matter further and made an offer to the Airlines, if it offered a package of 3 people (me, husband and son) for a week to any destination, in India, then it could be considered. But the same was not considered by the OPs. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.
3. Reply was filed by the OPs, wherein, it was stated that the complainant availed of the services of the OPs against consideration paid by her. It was further stated that the complainant was intimated regarding the delay of flight and when she reported for check in, all seats on the said flight were released and she could not be accommodated. However, the complainant was provided seat in Spice Jet Flight. She was also provided surface transport from Hyderabad to Bidar with driver who was well aware of the route. It was admitted that e-mail from the complainant regarding her grievance was received, and as a gesture of goodwill she was offered complimentary tickets, which were refused by her. It was further stated that as per DGCA guidelines, Airlines are permitted to overbook the flights by a few s
