Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member
Dr. Chandni Devi and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Air Asia (India) Limited and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.79 of 2022
(Against the order dated 28.10.2021 in
C.C. No.189 of 2019 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh) With IA/834/2022 (For Condonation of delay)
Decided on 30.4.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Dr. Chandni Devi in person Mr. G.S. Bajwa, Advocate (VC)
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Prakhar Saraswat, Advocate (VC)
For the Respondent No.2: Nemo
For the Respondent No.3:Mr. Kumar Ankur, Advocate (VC)
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Appeal against order of State Commission – Airline Service – It is uncontested position that the complainants purchased air tickets for her travel as per schedule from New Delhi to Sydney and back to Delhi. It also undisputed that her schedule was unilaterally changed by the OPs notwithstanding the fact that she planned these about a year in advance. OPs admitted that the schedule matrix that was planned by the complainant was changed due to operational reasons and that she had not been consulted or she has no scope to be consulted. It is their contention that it is due to operational reasons and expediency of international traffic this happened. It is undisputed that the complainant accepted these changes to the extent of performing journey from Delhi to Sydney which was uneventful, and she has no grievance with respect to that. He grievance commenced only at Kuala Lumpur when there was limited gap of only 75 minutes for her to change the aircraft from Sydney to Kuala Lumpur to Kuala Lumpur to New Delhi. In this transition, she was unable to reach the security area for boarding within the time prescribed. And the dispute arose. The OPs are aware that she was 17 weeks pregnant, which she notified well in advance. It is her grievance that the narrowing of timeline at Kuala Lumpur Airport occasioned due to change in the schedule that was affected by the OPs and therefore they ought to have assisted her to be able to safely reach the aircraft in time along with luggage transfer, which did not happen. It is undisputed that as a consequence of she not being able to board the aircraft in time, she was left stranded against her requirement at Kuala Lumpur for another two days and she had to travel from Kuala Lumpur to Chennai and Chennai to Delhi and from Delhi to Chandigarh by taxi. Further, her luggage reached in a torn and damaged condition five days later. Considering all these facts and the role of OPs-1 and 3 in the overall perspective, including the luggage transit, security responsibility at the airfields etc the State Commission has considered the matter and passed the orders as stated – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 6 to 11].
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member—This First Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”), against the Order dated 28.10.2001 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (“State Commission”) in CC No. 189 of 2019 partly allowing the complaint. Aggrieved by the Order, the complainant filed the present First Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For convenience, the parties in the present matter are being referred to as stated in the Consumer Complaint before the State Commission.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that complainant No. 1 had Booked three seats in Airasia flight in the month of June 2017 for they travel from Delhi to Sydney from 21.05.2018 to 30.05.2018. The booking was confirmed by email on 08.06.2017 by the OP-1. Thereafter, OP-1 on its own changed the schedule of flight from Kuala Lumpur to Sidney and the flight number was also changed from D7-220 to Flight D7-222 and thus the timing also was changed from 9:10 AM to 11:30 PM. This change was made notwithstanding the fact that their departure from New Delhi remained 22.05.2018. It is her specific contention that this sudden change of schedule was entirely unilateral was received by her by email on 02.02.2018. She contended that thereafter once again her flight schedule was changed for return journey from Sydney to Kuala Lumpur from 30.05.2028 to 31.05.2018, without taking any confirmation, clearance or acceptance from her. Further, the journey from Kula Lumpur to Delhi was also changed from 30.05.2008 to 01.06.2018. As a consequence of such arbitrary changes affected in her itinerary, without even checking her convenience and acceptability she faced severe inconvenience as during her travel from Sidney to Kuala Lumpur; and then from Kuala Lumpur to Delhi, there was a very small gap at Kuala Lumpur limited to only 75 minutes to board a changed aircraft. It was extremely difficult for her to depart the flight number D7-223 and board the new flight D7-182 at Kuala Lumpur. It is the specific contention of the complainant that she planned her schedule in a manner convenient for her and that in the given condition she was in due to pregnancy she planned to be able to safely reach the aircraft for boarding, without causing undue stress. She contended that at that stage she was 17 weeks pregnant and had difficulties with respect to quick movements. OPs were aware that she was pregnant as she had filled the requisite forms to notify her condition. Despite her inconvenience, she undertook the journey from Delhi to Kuala Lumpur and then to Kuala Lumpur to Sydney, because there was some space available. However, on the return journey from Kuala Lumpur to Delhi, which was not as per schedule, and she suffered severe complications during the journey from Sydney to Kuala Lumpur on 30.05.2018 as the flight reached Kuala Lumpur at 5:50 PM. The connecting Delhi flight D7- 182 was scheduled on 30.05.2018 at 07 05 PM itself. As a consequence, she had only 75 minutes gap between her arrival and departure by boarding a new flight. It is the specific grievance of the complainant that the OPs never provided any assistance to facilitate a pregnant woman to be put into a different aircraft along with compliance with airport formalities. She did her best to rush and reach the departure gate in time 15-20 minutes prior to the time. Even then, the OPs refused to allow her to board the aircraft, despite her detailed explanations about the circumstances under which the schedule was changed as well as her own declared medical condition. She specifically pointed to the absence of any support that was provided to her at the airport by OPs, as a consequence of which, despite her best efforts in the given situation she would still reach 15 to 20 minutes prior to the departure and that she be allowed to board the flight. It is the specific grievance of the complainants that despite her clear
