AIR INDIA Vs. K B DURGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant purchased an air ticket to travel from Singapore to Madras and back on 31.10.1996 and she came from Singapore and reached Madras on 16.11.1996 by flight No.78b. She got the return ticket back to Singapore confirmed on 26.12.1996 on a flight No.478b at 4.30 a. m. on 29.12.1996. The ticket number was 32301183 DA/s.47. It was issued by the opposite party at Singapore. An endorsement was also made on the ticket confirming the flight. The complainant after a short stay at Kumbakonam, her native place, reached Madras on 28th evening and reported for final checkup. After the formalities were over when she was about to board the flight, the complainant was told that there was no accommodation in the flight, even though the seat was confirmed and the endorsement was made. The complainant was unable to understand the reason for the sudden refusal of the opposite party to provide the same. She was not furnished with any sufficient cause or reason. She could reach Singapore only on 30.12.1996. Thus much inconvenience was caused by the dislocation created by the opposite party. She has to bear the expenses of her relatives more than 15 in number, who came to see her off to Singapore. Thus sheer neglect and deficiency in service resulted in this chaos and the complainant spent Rs.5,000/- towards their stay and food. Thus there was deficiency in service by the opposite party which has caused inconvenience and hardship to her and loss of goodwill. Therefore, she laid the complaint claiming a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- in all.

(2.) The opposite party contended that due to overbooking of flight in AI 478 the complainant could not be accommodated and that the opposite party made arrangements for her stay at Madras and she was subsequently accommodated in AIR 430 on 30.12.1996. It is also submitted that all arrangements were made for her stay at Madras. It is only due to overbooking she could not be accommodated in the flight that left on 29.12.1996. It is not true to say that the opposite party did not tell her the reason for the sudden change for the flight. It is also not admitted that the complainant had to certainly reach Singapore on 30.12.1996 to attend the meeting. It is also not admitted that any inconvenience or dislocation was caused to the complainant. There was no negligence or deficiency in service and if the complainant had spent Rs.5,000/- towards stay and food to her relatives, the opposite party is not liable for the same. There is no cause of action. The opposite party, therefore, prays that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

(3.) It is not disputed that the complainant had a confirmed ticket for the flight leaving on 29.12.1996 at 430 a. m. from Chennai to Singapore. That she was not permitted to travel in the sense, for want of accommodation, is the case of the opposite party. This, the opposite party would attribute as due to overbooking. It is also clear that the complainant had booked her ticket on 26.12.1996 itself, when it was confirmed. Therefore, to deny a passenger who held the confirmed ticket to travel, definitely amounts to deficiency in service. They cannot simply wash it of saying that it was on account of overbooking, she could not be accommodated on the flight No.478b on 29.12.1996. In a decision reported in I (1998) CPJ page 1, which has been cited by the lower Forum the West Bengal State Commission has held that the loading capacity of an aircraft is fixed one and known to Airline authorities who book the ticket accordingly. Therefore, it is very difficult to digest that there was miscalculation about the possible weight of the passengers when tickets were booked and that there was unexpected overloading on this account. Hence, it is difficult to accept the plea that the overloading of passengers or luggages was a sudden occurrence necessitating the cancellation of the confirmed tickets.