DR. CHANDNI DEVI Vs. AIR ASIA (INDIA) LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal is filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act"), against the Order dtd. 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 21/5/2018 to 30/5/2018. The booking was confirmed by email on 8/6/2017 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 22/5/2018. It is her specific contention that this sudden change of schedule was entirely unilateral was received by her by email on 2/2/2018. She contended that thereafter once again her flight schedule was changed for return journey from Sydney to Kuala Lumpur from 30/5/2028 to 31/5/2018, without taking any confirmation, clearance or acceptance from her. Further, the journey from Kula Lumpur to Delhi was also changed from 30/5/2008 to 1/6/2018. 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 30/5/2018 as the flight reached Kuala Lumpur at 5:50 PM. The connecting Delhi flight D7- 182 was scheduled on 30/5/2018 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 explanations which are easily verifiable and also happened at the behest of the OPs themselves, OPs refused to entertain her and allowed her on board. Further, when she queried about her luggage, the OPs informed her that the luggage has not been transferred into the aircraft in which she was to board. They refused to provide her any further assistance and refused to put her in the next flight to Delhi. As there were no flights for another two days, she was stranded at Kuala Lumpur and reached India only two days later through Chennai Delhi and then to Chandigarh. Her luggage was recovered only on 4/6/2018 in a damaged and torn condition. She immediately lodged a protest with regard to our luggage as well. The was agreed with the fact that, despite her involved effort and careful planning and fixing a schedule, the OPs resorted to unilaterally changing the schedules without her concurrence. Even then to the extent possible, she coped up. Further, when she was critical with time at Kaula Lumpur, which was due to OPs themselves, she was left without providing any assistance and support at Kuala Lumpur Airport. She still managed to reach the aircraft 15 to 20 minutes in advance and, however, she was not allowed to board the flight. She was subjected to gross inconvenience, agony, stress and financial implication of staying in Kuala Lumpur unnecessarily for two days and then travelled to Chennai and Delhi, followed by Chandigarh. Her luggage was also misplaced and reached five days later.