AIR INDIA Vs. REEMA SAWHNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed by opposite parties against order dated 21/9/2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), whereby complaint of the respondent (complainant) was accepted with costs of Rs. 3,500 and appellants (opposite parties) were directed to pay Rs. one lakh as compensation on account of harassment, agony and mental suffering, etc. Appellants were directed to comply with the order within two months, failing which they were held liable to pay aforesaid amount with interest @ 9% from the date of order till payment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Mrs. Reema Sawhny, respondent (complainant) was permanent resident of house No. 119, Sector-10, Chandigarh. However, after her marriage, she settled in USA and kept on visiting India off and on for meeting her parents and relatives. She and her infant son Aryan Sawhny had come to India in November, 2006 and booked Air India flight No. AI-310 for their return journey from India to USA (Delhi to Gaum via Hongkong for 21/1/2007. The journey from Delhi to Hong Kong was by Air India and from Hong Kong to Guam by Continental Airlines and she was having confirmed tickets issued by Air India. She had again got reconfirmed tickets 72 hours before the commencement of the journey from Air India office in Sector-17, Chandigarh (appellant No. 3 ). The printout of reconfirmed tickets is Annexure C-1. The flight was to leave Delhi at 2215 hours on 21/1/2007.

(3.) IT was further averred that on the appointed day, she along with infant son in her lap reported at 7. 30 p. m. and stood in queue for check-in. However, when her turn came she was told by the person managing the counter of Air India that they could not board the flight despite having confirmed tickets as the flight had been overbooked and she was told to make some alternative arrangement. She pleaded with the person concerned at the counter that she had confirmed tickets and further she was to get the next connected flight from Hong Kong for onward journey to Gaum (USA) by Continental Airlines for which she had confirmed tickets and she had a infant child in her lap, should be allowed to travel in Air India flight No. 310 but her request was not acceded to. However, after much argument, she and her infant child had been put on Air India flight No. 315 to Mumbai leaving around 12 O'clock on 21/1/2007 for onward journey by Air India flight No. 358 to Hong Kong via Bangkok. The confirmed tickets of Air India flight No. 310 were kept by the officials of Air India and the respondent was issued boarding pass for herself and her infant son for Air India flight No. 315 from Delhi to Mumbai and for Air India flight No. 358 to Hong Kong via Bangkok. The boarding pass for Air India flight No. 315 was retained by the officials of Air India on completion of the journey. The boarding pass for Air India flight No. 358 and copy of the luggage receipts collectively are Annexure C-2.