NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                                NEW DELHI

 

FIRST APPEAL NO.239  OF 1995

(From the order dated  21.2.1995  in O.P. No.108/93 of the State Commission Punjab)

 

1.   The Manager, Air India Ltd.,

Trichy Road, Coimbatore

 

2.   The Chairman, Air India Limited,

Himalaya House,

23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.                                    …        Appellants

                                    Vs.

1.   A. Moideen Kutty,S/0 Shri Alachiyil

Veerankutty, Alachiyil House,

S.R.K. Nagar, Ottapalam –3

Palakkad District

 

2.   The Manager, Ashok Travels,

Chandraman Building,

T.B. Road, Ottapalam.

 

 

3.   The Manager, Ashok Travels,

Trichy Road, Coimbatore                                                 …   Respondents

 

BEFORE:

                        HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,

                                                                          PRESIDENT

                        HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER.

                        MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER.

           

(i)    Travel by air - Complainant holding confirmed ticket - denied seat - complainant  losing his job in Saudi Arabia - holding deficiency in service.

(ii)   Damages for both loss of employment and mental shock.

 

 

 

For the appellant                       :   Ms. Shipra Mathur, Advocate

                                                    For M/s. Bhasin & Co., Advocates

 

For the respondent No.1          :   Mr. G. Parkash, Advocate.

For the respondent No.2          :   Mr. Atul Jha, Advocate. 

 

                                                O R D E R

 

DATED THE 29th  JANUARY, 2002.

 

JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT)

 

                        Appellants,  Air India – national  carrier,  are aggrieved  by the order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holding   them to be deficient in service and directing payment of compensation to the complainant who is the first respondent before us.  Respondent No.3, Ashok Travels is the agent of Air India.   Second respondent is the branch of Ashoka Travels at  Ottapalam in the State of Kerala.  They being the agents  had been let off.   It had not been proved that they had been in any way deficient in service.
                        Complainant, an Indian national,  was  employed in  Saudi Arabia  since 15.5.1990.   He took leave from his  employer there and came to India.   Before    leaving Saudi Arabia  complainant obtained re-etnry endorsement.   He was to return Saudi Arabia  within two months’ period  which expired on  23.9.1992.   His visa to enter Saudi Arabia was to expire on this day.   This was as per Hijara Calender.  In spite of his having confirmed ticket to travel from Bombay  to   Riyadh  of the Appellants-Air India he was not provided  a seat in the aircraft leaving on 21.9.1992 or even on 23.9.1992 with the result he lost  his job which he could have  continued for a further period of one year and nine months.   Complainant  said  that he suffered  great shock and mental agony the way he was treated by Air India.     He fell unconscious  in front of the counter of Air India when he was denied seat in the aircraft leaving for Riyadh and his prospect of losing his job.  He was even hospitalised.   He had to incur expenses for travel from his home town from Kerala  to Bombay and back  and also for stay in Bombay.                                               Complaining deficiency   in service  he  filed a complaint before the  State Commission.   According to the complainant he is entitled to  the compensation of Rs.22,16,002.00  but he is  limiting his claim to Rs.10.00 lakhs within the jurisdiction of the State Commission.   State Commission by the impugned order  awarded him Rs.2,52,000/- for loss of salary for the period of one year  and nine months  in Saudi Arabia @ Rs.12,000/- per month,   Rs.10,000/- for mental shock  and agony and Rs.4,500/- for expenses  incurred.   Thus totalling  Rs.2,66,500/-.
                         Appellants denied  the allegations in the complaint and raised an objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission in Kerala.   State Commission on the basis of pleadings of the parties noticed that three points arose  for consideration:  (i)  whether Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission     has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; (ii)  whether there was deficiency in service on the part of  Air India  and their agents in not providing seat to the complainant;  and (iii)  to what relief complainant was entitled  to.   Confirmed ticket for  travel by aircraft of  Air India from Bombay to Riyadh  was purchased by the complainant  at Ottappalam in Kerala from agents of the Air India  who was having its head office in Coimbatore  in the State of Tamil Nadu.  State Commission rightly  held  that it had jurisdiction in the matter.  We think it is unfortunate that Air India should have raised such a technical objection to the jurisdiction of the State Commission when it  has offices  all over the country and resources to defend the case against it.   Fourtunately, such a plea had not been pressed before us.  The State Commission laboured hard to come to the conclusion that it had jurisdiction in the matter. 
                        It   is not  disputed that complainant was having a confirmed ticket to travel by the aircraft of Air India by the flight AI  821 for travel from  Bombay to Riyadh on 21.9. 1992.   Complainant reached Bombay with his luggage.   To his utter surprise  he was told  by the officials at the counter that his name was not in the list of passengers  in flight No.821.  Complainant explained to the officials of Air India of his plight and consequences of his not  reaching Riyadh before 23.9.1992.   They told him that he could fly by another flight of Air India on 23.9.1992  it,  being a flight No.AI - 815.   Complainant then reached airport four hours before the flight time on 23.9.1992.   Again he was informed by the officials  at the counter that his name was only in the waiting list.   His luggage and ticket were returned to him.   Complainant says that he felt a great shock and became unconcisous and fell down in front of the  Air India counter.   As noted above, he remained sick for one week and  admitted to hospital in Bombay for treatment.  Appellants admitted that complainant had a ticket booked from  their agent through the Madras office of the Appellants ( Ticket No. 098-4208485031, sticker  No. 227372 – Computer No. H7  N6B ).  They say that there was some confusion because of the computer failure  at Coimbatore and that one other person of the same name Moideenkutty though from Calicut was given a seat in the aircraft and that non provision of seat to the complainant was on account of a bona fide mistake which  occurred due to  failure of  their computer system.    According to the  appellants  the ticket of the complainant  for his travel by Air India  by their flight No.AI-821 on 21.9.1992 was booked by their  agent at Coimbatore through the Madras Office of  Air India  due to non-availability  of computer system  at that time at Coimbatore.  This is   how the  Air India has set up its case:
                        When the computer system was restored the follow-up action for this  particular ticket, was taken up by the Coimbatore Office of Air India.   Again the Computer system failed for several days and when the 2nd opposite party (respondent No.3) contacted their Coimbatore  office, to find out the status of the booking the Coimbatore Office contacted the Space Control, Bombay, for name retrieval since the P.N.R. (Computer Number)  of this ticket was not available with the Coimbatore office then.  There was one A. Moideenkutty for whom a seat had been confirmed in flight No.AI-821 on 21.9.1992, through the Calicut Office, and the Space Control informed the Coimbatore office, that  ‘A. Moideenkutty’ had a confirmed seat and without knowing that the said person, was another  ‘A. Moideenkutty’ who had booked a seat through the Calicut Office of the Air India, the Coimbatore Office informed the 2nd opposite party, that the seat for the complainant had been confirmed and  an O.K  sticker was given to him.  The name of ‘A.Moideenkutty (Anchukantan) with computer No.HB 4LD whose ticket had been confirmed was  in the flight list for 21.9.1992 and he travelled in that flight.  The complainant’s ticket had not actually been confirmed, and for want of seat he could not be provided with a seat in that flight.   It was further averred that it was not due to any negligence on the part of the Air India but due to a bona fide mistake, caused due to failure of the computer system, for reasons  beyond the control of Air India, that the complainant was advised that his seat had been confirmed  for the flight on the 21st September, 1992.   The complainant also could not be provided with a seat on the  23rd September, because  the flight was over-booked and though his  name had been  included in the wait-list, no seat was available, because  of lack of cancellation  and fall-outs.   The allegations in the complaint that the complainant  became unconscious and that he was admitted to a hospital at Bombay and treated there are not known to Air India.
                        We do not think any more thing is required to hold that  there is extreme deficiency in service on the part of Air India and it is rightly so held by the State Commission.   This action of Air India-Appellants  had not only caused the complainant to lose his job but also made him suffer  a great deal of shock and mental agony and expense.   Perhaps award of compensation for salary for the   remaining period  of contract of service by the State Commission amounting to Rs.2,16,000/-  might not have been very  correct but then the award of damages for mental tension and other expenses incurred by the complainant  as awarded by the State Commission   are too meagre.  Complainant had wanted Rs.5.00 lakhs   for shock and mental agony and the State Commission awarded only Rs.10,000/-.    One can understand  the condition of the complainant at that time  when one puts himself in the place of the complainant..
                        In the  circumstances  we  are not inclined  to interfere  with  the  award  of  damages   calculated  on    the   basis   of    salary   for    the    whole   remaining period of
 employment of the complainant.   This  appeal fails and is dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs.10,000/-.

 

 

………………………………………J

(JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA)

                      PRESIDENT

 

 

………………………………………J

(J.K. MEHRA)

     MEMBER

 

 

 

………………………………………

(B.K. TAIMNI)

                       MEMBER