ASHOK KUMAR BHAILALBHAI THAKKAR Vs. AIR INDIA LIMITED
LAWS(GUJCDRC)-2010-9-2
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 16,2010

Ashok Kumar Bhailalbhai Thakkar Appellant
VERSUS
AIR INDIA LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 12.2.2992 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City in Consumer Case No. 217 of 1996, dismissing the above case, the appellant i.e. the original complainant has filed this appeal on the grounds stated in the appeal memo. Learned Forum came to dismiss the complaint. The appellant is the original complainant and respondent is original opponent and as such they have been referred to in their original nomenclature for the sake of convenience.
(2.) THE short facts of the complainant's case are that the complainant had booked a ticket in opponent's flightNo. 112dated 1.3.1996 for journey from New York to Ahmedabad, as there is direct service from Ahmedabad to New York and vice versa. The complainant had confirmed ticket for check in and check out at Ahmedabad. However, the complainant was given check out at New Delhi. The complainant had expressed grievance at New York office about change of place of check out but he was not given any satisfactory response. The Complainant was required to change the flight at New Delhi to come to Ahmedabad. The complainant had checked out at New Delhi at midnight and he was to get another flight of Indian Airlines for Ahmedabad early in the morning. The opponent had not made any arrangement for lodging and boarding till the time of connecting flight from New Delhi to Ahmedabad was available. The complainant had to pay 123 U.S.D for the excess baggage to the Indian Airlines Authority which only allows 25 kg. against Air India rules of 60 kg. As the place of check out was changed from Ahmedabad to New Delhi, the complainant's relatives were compelled to come to New Delhi by air to receive the complainant. The complainant, therefore, had claimed compensation for deficiency in service committed by the opponents.
(3.) WE have heard learned Advocate for the parties at length. It is an admitted fact that in this case the complainant had purchased confirmed return tickets at Ahmedabad for his journey from Ahmedabad to New York and return journey from New York to Ahmedabad and complaints check in and check out was at Ahmedabad. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant was given check out at New Delhi instead of Ahmedabad. However the say of the opponent is that the complainant was informed well in advance about the change in place of check out. It cannot be gainsaid that complainant had suffered hardships and inconvenience owing to opponent's unilateral change of place of check out at the last moment. The opponent, therefore, should be made to pay reasonable compensation to the complainant for the hardship suffered by him due to opponent's default, The complainant has failed to prove by any documentary evidence about payment of extra baggage charges paid to Indian Airlines as alleged He is, therefore, not entitled for the same. Having thus regard to the facts and circumstances of the case especially admitted factual position in regard to agreed place of check out, the learned Forum ought to have held that the opponent had committed deficiency in service by changing the place of check out unilaterally and one -sidedly. The impugned order of learned Forum is, therefore, required to be set aside. Accordingly we pass the following order: ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The opponent is directed to pay Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) to the complainant for mental agony, inconvenience, hardship, etc. There shall be no order as to cost.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.