VINAYAK NAGESH SHRIKHANDE Vs. AIR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a complaint filed by Dr. Shrikhande, aged 72 years against Air India, who operates International flight from India to various destinations across the world.

(2.) DR . Shrikhande tlie complainant is the leading Surgeon of India practising in Mumbai for the last four decades. He is Professor and Head of General Surgery, Department of the Bombay Hospital and Institute of Medical Sciences. Air India, the O.P. is a Government owned Corporation having its Head Office at Nariman Point, Mumbai. It operates flight from various cities of India to various destinations across the world. The complainant wanted to attend the Annual Conference of American College of Surgeons at Chicago from 19th to 23rd October, 2003. It was an important event in the surgical world. The complainant had undergone open -heart surgery in the Bombay Hospital in June, 2002 and it was his first international travel after his operation. He was going to travel alone. He chose to travel by Air India flight and booked J Class seat in Air India for to and fro air journey from Mumbai to New York and back by paying Rs. 1,46,000. The complainant averred that he boarded aircraft at Mumbai International Airport at Sahar on 11th October, 2003 and was allotted Seat No. 18K. as per Boarding Card. During the travel he found that seat belt sign was switched off and complainant could not convert his seat into reclining position. He called one of the stewards for doing needful but he was told by the said Cabin staff that the seat had been defective for several weeks. He met the Pilot whose spontaneous comment was "It is surprising. How can it be so. I will help you". The Pilot unsuccessfully tried to put the seat in a reclining position, but could not do so and informed the complainant that he was helpless and since there was no vacant seat available in the flight, complainant had to bear with them. As such it is the case of the complainant that he had to undertake journey in an upright sitting position right upto London Airport. The complainant also noticed that the belt got stuck and there was futile attempt of the cabin staff to adjust the seat and to retrieve the seat belt. The complainant was told by the staff not to worry and accept the obtainable situation. According to the complainant he was the only passenger in the entire Jumbo Jet without safety belt and it was really a frightening experience for him not to have a seat belt for fastenting at the time of take off and landing. He was therefore required to continue air -travel from Mumbai to London with anxiety, mental and physical stress and that travel between Mumbai to London Sector was extremely painful experience for him. The Cabin staff came to help him. but to no avail and told him that it was the defect noticed much earlier and nothing had been done because repairs could not be easily managed in India. It is the grievance of the complainant that though this fact was known to the Air India staff, why in the first place this seat, which was defective was sold to him. No body from the Cabin staff expressed any regret for the bad services rendered to him. When he landed at Heathrow Airport he had a sinking feeling with palpitations and ultimately when he reached U.S.A. he was tired passenger with the feeling of hurt and being cheated. He could not get sleep and he had to suffer body ache during entire period of his stay in U.S.A. and his full participation in the Conference was impossible because of disturbance and traumatic experience he had gone through while on board on Air India flight from Mumbai to London.

(3.) ON coming back to India on 17th November, 2003 he wrote a letter to Air India detailing his grievance and bad experience he received in Air India flight, to which he received reply dated 28th November, 2003 from one Mrs. A. Mascarenhas informing that on the next occasion he would be upgraded to first class. He received another letter dated 5th December, 2003 from the same Lady Officer that Air India would offer him complimentary J Class ticket from Mumbai to Dubai or Mumbai to Delhi for the inconvenience caused to him during his flight in Air India on 11th October, 2003 from Mumbai to London. According to the complainant the so called magnanimous offer was mockery of justice and added insult to his injury. He received further letter from Air India dated 8th December, 2003 from Mr. Subroto Ghosal requesting him to inform them about his next travel plan, so that they could provide him better service. The complainant pleaded in his complaint that he was a Surgeon of great eminence. He annexed at Exhibit -G his "Curriculum Vitae" and has mentioned about his unique honour to have been invited to New Delhi to operate upon the then President, His Excellency, Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma for complicated problems. He pleaded that the conduct of O.P. was totally unfair trade practice and exploitation of a consumer while providing him with a seat, which was not in saleable condition at all. The complainant complained that during the journey the Cabin staff did nothing to make his air travel comfortable and luxurious since he had paid whopping amount of Rs. 1,46,000 for to and fro journey from Mumbai - London - New York and back. According to the complainant they had intentionally cheated him and Air -India committed fraud on him. The defective seat was offered to him and there was absolute lack of service given to him as such passenger/consumer. The complainant asserts that he felt very sad and hurt in the sense of he being completely humiliated and tortured and any offer of Air India would not be sufficient to compensate him for loss of comfort and luxury assured by the Air India, when he purchased J Class ticket. According to the complainant while he was allotted a defective seat in J Class (Executive Class), the comforts he could get were worst than a Y Class seat, where there is some element of adjustment for a reclining position. Throughout the journey, he was in an awkward upright position without any movement to the seat at all. Though he was revenue passenger, he was allotted a defective seat, but persons having complimentary tickets or some upgraded passengers were given a seat in First Class or J class without any defect and they were far better off than the passenger like him, who was revenue passenger having fully paid the ticket amount of Rs. 1,46,000. The complainant pleaded that non -availability of seat belt was a serious omission on the part of the Air India. Such a thing was not heard of by any passenger because as per International Civil Aviation standards, fastening of seat belt is mandatory and it should be so available to every passenger undertaking air journey by any aircraft or plane and this was Jumbo Jet of Air India, which ought to have in it seat belt arrangement in proper form because fastening of seat belt is mandatory and non -availability of seat belt was a serious omission detrimental to the security and safety of the passengers. In the circumstances, complainant filed this complaint for compensation for this deficiency in service, inconvenience, mental agony, physical and mental suffering and indifferent attitude of staff of O.P. and therefore he had claimed damages of Rs. 25 lakh from Air India. He filed affidavit in support of his complaint along with necessary documents.