V.RAMACHANDRAN Vs. AIR INDIA
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2008-3-10
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 27,2008

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.SAMPATH, J. - (1.) The prayer in the complaint is for a direction to the Opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,46,160/- to the complainant on the following allegations :- For their travel to Dubai they were allotted seat Nos.50E & F in Air India flight No.AI 705 on 25/3/1998. Right from the commencement of the journey, the air conditioning in the zone in which the complainants were seated was not functioning. They put a member of the cabin crew on notice of this. The said member, instead of giving a proper answer, responded rudely. The complainants put another cabin crew member on notice who, unable to rectify the defect, brought in the Supervisor. The crew admitted that even before the aircraft took off the air conditioning in the said zone was not working and nothing could be done. In spite of their such knowledge they had not taken any action to rectify the defect. Consequently the journey of four hours was miserable. The temperature in the zone of the complainants was very high. The complainants were thus forced to sit through the journey in most uncomfortable, unhealthy and unhygienic conditions and by the time the complainants reached the destination, both the complainants felt very sick. Because of this situation, during the entire duration of their stay in Dubai the complainants took ill and could not attend to any of their programmes. The entire trip was thus a total waste. Apart from the cost of the tickets, the complainants had spent other sums, all of which had become total waste on account of the uncomfortable, unhealthy and unhygienic in-flight travel conditions. Their agony was entirely due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Airlines. On their return, the complainants addressed a letter dated 7th April 1998 setting out the above facts to the opposite party. By their letter dated 4/5/98, the opposite party admitted that the air conditioning was not functioning and instead deliberately stated that the zone was not cool to the optimum, so opposed to the fact. The zone was very hot and there was no cooling since the air conditioning in the zone was not available. The complainants caused a lawyers notice to be issued on 3/6/98 claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. A reply was received from the counsel for the opposite party dated 16-6-98/20-6-98 stating that due to development of a malfunctioning in the aircraft the zone in which the complainants were seated was not cool to the optimum ; that the flight engineer on board did try to rectify the problem but it could not be rectified. On the return flight, the air conditioning functioned satisfactorily.
(2.) The Opposite party have filed a version denying the allegations in the complaint. It is not correct to say that that the crew admitted that even before the aircraft took off the air conditioning in the said zone was not working and that nothing could be done. Equally it is not correct to say that the crew were fully aware that the air conditioning in the said zone was not working even when it took off despite which no action appeared to have been taken to rectify the said defect. It is denied that the journey was rendered miserable, that the temperature in the zone occupied by the complainants was very high and that the complainants were forced to sit through the journey in most uncomfortable, unhealthy and unhygienic conditions particularly since the said zone was fully occupied and by the time they reached the destination both the complainants felt sick. It is not correct to say that the complainants had been put to severe loss and embarrassment by reason of the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) Proof affidavits were filed. On the side of the complainants Exs.A-1 to A-7 have been marked. No document has been marked on the side of the opposite party. Written submissions were also filed.;


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