Back
I (2015) CPJ 27 (TN)
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI, PRESIDENT; THIRU J. JAYARAM & TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI, MEMBERS
SHIV PRAKASH GOENKA – Appellant
Versus
LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES & ORS – Respondent
C.C. No. 58 of 2010
Decided On : 17-10-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S. Natarajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. J. Sivanandaraj, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that airlines must not down-grade passengers from their booked class without proper reason or justification, and such actions constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection - Air Travel - Consumer Protection Act - Section 2(1)(d), EC Regulation 261/2004 - The court discussed the complainant's claim of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the airlines for down-grading his business class seat to economy class without his consent. The court held that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and the complainant was entitled to compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a frequent business class traveler, booked a business class seat for his journey but was down-graded to economy class without his consent. He suffered physical discomfort, loss of respect, and humiliation, leading to severe mental agony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the airlines' action amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and the complainant was entitled to compensation.
Issues: The issues were whether there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the airlines, and whether the complainant was entitled to claim compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the airlines' down-grading of the complainant from business class to economy class without proper reason or justification constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Final Decision: The complaint was partly allowed, directing the airlines to refund the cost of the ticket and pay a total compensation of Rs. 20 lac, along with costs of Rs. 10,000.
ORDER :
THIRU J. JAYARAM, MEMBER
1. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is the Chairman and Managing Director of a group of flourishing companies. The complainant used to travel abroad very frequently and he used to travel only in Business Class/First Class so that his air travel would be comfortable in his advanced age and health conditions. The complainant has undergone three surgeries, and he used wheel chair for boarding the flight. During the month of October 2010 he scheduled his foreign trip and booked his ticket for his entire journey by Lufthansa Airlines/the opposite parties herein. He paid the entire airfare for his journey in business class of the opposite parties airlines. The confirmed seat numbers with the business class were allotted to him well in advance for all the phases of his journey comprising trips from Chennai to Frankfurt, Frankfurt to Madrid, and back to Frankfurt from Madrid and from Frankfurt to Chennai in the opposite parties airlines Seat No. 10G in the business class for his scheduled travel from Frankfurt to Chennai on 24.10.2010 in flight No. LH758 was allotted to the complainant well in advance. The complainant has paid the full airfare well in advance for allotment of seat in the business class and he has become a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. On 24.10.2010, the Bell Captain of Sheraton Hotel at Frankfurt Airport brought the complainant to check-in lounge and the complainant produced his E-ticket to the staff concerned. After due check, he was issued the boarding pass. As he had already paid the entire consideration for allotment of seat No. 10G in the business class in the said flight and he has been flying in the business class only in the opposite parties airlines for several years without any problem, it never struck him that he should verify the boarding pass. The complainant, after collecting the boarding pass, moved to the aircraft in an electric car which brought the complainant to the boarding gate, and upon boarding the plane, he was frantically searching for his seat in the business class, and at that time a staff of the Cabin Crew conducted the complainant to the Economy Class and showed seat No. 28E saying that he was allotted that seat. On seeing that economy class seat was allotted to him, and whereas he had paid for business class, the complainant was rudely shocked and his palpitation soared up and he could not digest such an arbitrary re-allotment of economy class seat after collecting airfare for business class seat by the opposite parties well in advance, duly confirming and allotting his seat in business class. Due to the sudden turn of events, he was rendered dumbfold, and in fact he temporarily lost his presence of mind and agility to agitate and claim restoration of his original seat in the business class. The above agonizing allotment of inferior class seat not only aggravated his ill-health but also mortified his prestige and his companies’ reputation built over decades and he could not regain his posture and presence of mind.
3. At this devastated stage, a staff of the opposite party accosted the complainant and literally thrust upon him a compensation voucher for 1500 Euro Dollar saying that the compensation was for the surrender of his business class seat, but the complainant has never thought of surrendering his ticket in the business class on any account. The complainant was very particular about the business class seat at his advanced age and health condition needed such comforts, for which he paid, and further there was no need for him to surrender his business class seat for any pecuniary benefits. The staff, while handing over the voucher informed the complainant that his name had already been announced prior to his boarding the flight as a passenger who surrendered his business class seat, is totally untrue. The complainant never volunteered to surrender his legitimate seat booked in advance on payment
