NRIPENDRA KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE vs INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED

THE fact of the complaint in nutshell is that the complainant purchased an Air ticket on 16.9.95 from the opposite party No. 1 as its Booking office at Calcutta through a travel agent namely Travelogue India (P) Ltd. for ticketed itinerary only. THE opposite parties issued on 27.9.95 a circular No. 827 (R & T) notifying inter alia that its domestic Rupee Air fares were being increased by 20% on an average but the tickets issued up to the 30th September 1995 would be accepted for travel commencing on or before 14th October, 1995, at prerevised fare for ticketed itinerary only as per Clause (ii) under Broad Head II Effectiveness of the said circular. It was also stated in the said notification dated 27.9.95 under Clause (viii) of the said Broad Head II Effectiveness that "all efforts should be made to contact the passengers holding such tickets and their tickets so that last minute pressure at Air Ports is minimised."

IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner along with his wife and two sons resumed journey on 10th October, 1995 from Calcutta to Hyderabad and then from Hyderabad to Bangalore and Bangalore to Trivandrum upto 19th October, 1995 and then from Cochin to Delhi on 24th October, 1995 and Delhi to Calcutta on 25th October, 1995. IT is alleged that the opposite parties did not charge enhanced fare as per notification dated 27.9.95 upto journey dated 19th October, 1995 but the opposite parties demanded extra fares of Rs. 5,172/- (per head Rs. 1,293) at the time of petitioner''s journey with his family from Cochin Airport to Delhi Airport on 24.9.95 and that the petitioner and his family members would not be allowed to board the aircraft for journey from Cochin to Delhi unless the differential extra fares of Rs. 5172/- is paid. IT is the further case of the petitioner that flight from Cochin to Delhi being a biweekly flight the petitioner was to avail of the flight on 24th October, 1995 in order to avail of the flight from Delhi to Calcutta by Modiluft on the following day on 25th October, 1995 and in such compelling circumstances, the petitioner had to arrange for payment of extra fare demanded by the opposite parties by way of loan as he was in short of cash money at that time. IT is further case of the complainant /petitioner that he became nervous and suffered from tension/anxiety due to uncertainty and being a Judge of Hon''ble High Court was compelled to request the then Hon''ble Acting Chief Justice, Kerala High Court and his registrar to lend the said amount on account of extra fare as the petitioner did not have sufficient cash flow in his hand at that time. As a result, the petitioner had to stoop low, suffered indignity, dishonor, humility and insult before the persons who were then present in the V.I.P. lounge including his subordinate officials, protocol official and securities at Cochin Airport and that the Hon''ble Chief Justice of Kerala High Court assured to pay the extra fare on account of the petitioner to the opposite parties and he accordingly paid the same. Subsequently the petitioner remitted back the amount paid to him by Kerala High Court. IT is alleged by the petitioner that the opposite parties illegally and wrongfully harassed and humiliated the petitioner at Cochin Airport, unlawfully pressurised the petitioner to pay the alleged extra fares and that said unwarranted situation could have been easily avoided by sending appropriate message to the petitioner message at Calcutta High Court before his journey commenced on 10th October, 1995 and that such misconduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part and accordingly is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, the petitioner prayed for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the opposite parties and for in other consequential reliefs. Opposite parties contested the complaint petitioner by filing written statement. In the written statement the opposite party inter alia contended that from the passenger coupons of the tickets being annexure "A" to the complaint petition it reveals that the journey of the petitioner and his family members were from Calcutta to Hyderabad, Hyderabad to Bangalore and Bangalore to Trivandrum and that the original station of journey as mentioned in the passenger coupon was Calcutta and destination station was Trivandrum and that it is explicitly clear that the journey of the ticketed itinerary for Calcutta to Trivandraum and since journey commenced before 14th October, 1995 no excess fare was claimed from them for their journey from Calcutta to Hyderabad, Hyderabad to Bangalore and Bangalore to Trivandrum, in terms of sub-clause (ii) of Board Head-II-Effectiveness of the said circular and that the petitioner and his family members purchased separate tickets for their journey from Cochin to Delhi having no link or nexus with the journey from Calcutta to Trivandrum and that as the journey of the petitioner and his family members from Cochin to Delhi was not covered by the tickets for itinerary from Calcutta to Trivandrum and since the origin was Cochin and destination station at Delhi and such jouney was after 14th October, 1995, the petitioner and his family members were liable to pay the difference of fares as per revised rates applicable in such cases as per notification. It is contended by the opposite parties that the petitioner purchased the tickets on 16th September, 1995 and the petitioner came to know about the fare hike before commencement of his journey on 10th October, 1995 and the petitioner could have paid the excess amount of the fare for his journey from Cochin to Delhi by approaching the office of the travel agent or at the office of the opposite party No. 1 and that if such care would have been taken the petitioner and his family members would not have faced the situation at Cochin Air Port for their journey from Cochin to Delhi on 24th October, 1995. It is stated by the opposite parties that after having come to know the status the petitioner, he was given to two options either to pay the difference at Cochin or to pay the same at Calcutta and he was allowed to journey by the flight I.C. 468 leaving Cochin on 24.10.95 for Delhi upon assurance to pay the difference money at Cochin by the Registrar at Kerala High Court at Cochin and the same would be reflected. On the passenger coupon, Thereafter all materials allegations were denied by the opposite parties and it was specifically contended that had not officials of the opposite party No. 1 realised extra fare, it would have been a dereliction of duty on the part of the officials of the opposite party and the actions taken by the officials of the opposite party was right and correct. There is no specific prayer rather no prayer or submission at all in the written statement for dismissing of the complaint or any other relief. DECISION

Having heard the learned Counsels of both the parties and having perused the materials on record, it appears to us that the fare of Air flight was enhanced as per Notification dated 27.9.95. To understand the purport and import of the said notification the relevant clauses which are necessary for adjudication of the dispute in the present case are set forth as under : I. Tariff Indian Airlines'' Fares (i) Indian Airlines'' domestic Rupee fares are being increased by 20% on an average. B. II Effectiveness (i) Tickets issued upto the 30th of September, 1995 would be accepted for travel commencing on or before the 14th of October, 1995 at prerevised fares for ticketed itinerary only. (viii) All efforts should be made to contact the passengers holding such tickets and reissue their tickets so that last minute pressure at airports is minimised.

WE have carefully gone through subClause (1) of Clause-under Broad Head one Tariff and with the Clause (ii) and (viii) of Clause under Broad. Head-II-Effectiveness of the said notification dated 17.9.95. It gives rise to two effects one is that the passengers having purchased ticket upto 30th September, 1995 and commencing travel on or before 14th October, 1995 they could be availed of the pre-revised fares for ticketed itinerary and that all efforts would be made on the part of the opposite parties to contact the passengers holding such tickets and reissue their tickets whose journeys are supposed to be commenced after 14th October, 1995, so that last minute pressure at Airport is minimised. Admittedly the petitioner and family members purchased tickets on 16.9.95 and resumed journey on 10.10.95 long before the stipulated dates on both occasions.

THE opposite parties have tried to impress upon us that the tickets purchased in two parts are not composite one end the ticketed itinerary are not same and uniform and to that effect they referred to SI. No. 0581 and 0582 of the two parts of the tickets and also pointed out that the sectors of journey were categorically illustrated in the first page and the second page of the bill, althought both the pages of the bill are covered under same and one bill No. BDE 1061 dated 16.9.95 and the second page is marked as continuation of the first page. We are unable to accept the contentions of the opposite parties that this journey were not integral and composite one. The sectors mentioned in the bill dated 16.9.95 against respective routes of the air flight do not indicate the severance of the journeys. To our opinion, this was a composite and integral journey on the part of the petitioner commencing on 10th October, 1995 ending with 24th October, 1995 for ticketed itinerary. The severance of numbers as 0581 and 0582 in two parts of the tickets comprising in one bill cannot be continued as severance of ticketed itinerary journey as alleged by the opposite parties and we are unable to accept their contention.

WE further note that the duty cast upon the opposite parties in terms of clause (viii) under Broad Head II Effectiveness to contact the passengers holding such tickets requiring reissue their tickets so that last minute pressure at Airport is minimised but in the instant case no such contract was made with the petitioner by the opposite parties. It is not believed that for want of address of the petitioner the opposite parties could not contact the petitioner when specific address is mentioned in the bill dated 16.9.95 at High Court, Calcutta. Therefore, it is presumed that having felt there was no scope to connect with the petitioner for reissuing his ticket in terms of the notification dated 27.9.95, they did not contact him. Assuming if there was any scope to contact with the petitioner for reissue of his ticket which is composite one for ticketed itinerary then it must be held that there is a serious deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for their failure and negligence dated 27.9.95. It is a case which attracts both he breach of contact and also of negligence inasmuch as that the petitioner had confirmed ticket for ticketed itinerary from Calcutta to Delhi via Hyderabad, Bangalore, Trivandrum, Cochin and Delhi and he checked it at Cochin Airport in time but he was denied to board on aircraft without payment of Rs. 5,172/- being the alleged dues of enhanced rate effective from itinerary journey commencing after 14th October, 1995. It is a clear breach of contract and that even assuming enhanced rate was applicable in the instant case the petitioner ought to have been contacted for the reissue of his ticket for itinerary journey as per terms of clause (viii) under Board Head II Effectiveness of the Notification dated 27:9.1995 and failure to do so amounts to serious negligence and deficiency in service. The petitioner had no obligation to contact the opposite parties or their Agent for the said purpose as alleged. The petitioner an existing Judge of Calcutta High Court is a person of extreme high-status and he suffered from humiliation, tension, indignity and mental agony for said incident in presence of the public. Further, the petitioner suffered nervousness as he had no sufficient cash money at his hand at that time to meet up the demands of the opposite parties and had he not been able to procure the money by way of loan from the Kerala High Court he and his family would have been detained to avail of the flight leaving Trivandrum on 24th October, 1995 and would have been a victim to untold misery as the said flight was a biweekly in that case he and his family would have been forced to live there for fortnight and also he could not have availed of flight Modiluft leaving from Delhi to Calcutta as per confirmed ticket on 25th October, 1995. However, the petitioner incidentally had been saved from all such situations as he arranged to pay the demands of the opposite parties by loan from Kerala High Court but he had to suffer untold harassment, mental agony and humiliation caused by the opposite parties.

ACCORDINGLY, he is entitled to compensation as per provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and such compensation is payable to the consumer for loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to negligence of the opposite parties. In this case the negligence of opposite parties have properly been established. As regards contention of the opposite parties that the hiking of the fare was published in all leading newspapers all over the country at the material time and it is expected that the petitioner was also aware of the same. It is not denying that it was unknown about hiking of air fare but was clearly felt by the petitioner that he is not affected by the said notification in terms of the conditions mentioned in said notification dated 27.9.95. The other contention of the opposite parties that the petitioner being Hon''ble Judge be treated as a litigant like other litigant. It is not intelligible to us why this notion has cropped in the mind of the opposite parties that the petitioner would not be treated as an ordinarily litigant and such unwarranted apprehension is totally baseless and is condemned.

The next contention of the opposite parties is that the petitioner has not prayed for refund of the excess amount being the difference in fare as such the payment on the part of the opposite parties in as much as even the petitioner escapes to pray for refund of the difference fares of Rs. 5,172/- paid on this score, the Consumer Forum has competency and authority to award for refund of the same as per provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act and principle laid down by the Hon''ble National Commission in the case of District Manager, Telephones, Patna & Another v. Dr. Tarun Bhartuar & Another, reported in I (1992) CPJ 47 (NC). It as been held by the National Commission in the said case that the reliefs which a consumer dispute forum can grant are specified in Section 14. As per Section 14(1)(d), is for the consumer forum to award an appropriate amount by way of compensation to a consumer for any loss or injury suffered by him due to negligence of the opposite parties, in other words it is not mandatory obligatory on the part of the complainant/ petitioner to ask for his specific relief and the consumer forum are not debarred from granting reliefs not prayed for by the complainant in he complaint petition.

THE State Commission, Madras in the case of V. Krishnaswami v. Manager, Southern Region, Air India & Ors. reported, in 1992 (2) CPR 561 has held that in a complaint before redressal forum unliquidated damages as are claimed for negligence and deficiency in service must be of such a kind that a reasonable man should have been foreseen the same. In the said clause, the complainant /petitioner missed a flight to Singapore due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which he claimed for compensation of Rs. 8,50,000 / which the complainant claimed to have suffered due to non signing of a contract in Singapore as such the said loss suffered was the direct result of the conduct of the opposite parties for which compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- was awarded and Rs. 25,000 / was awarded towards mental suffering to the complainant. But in the instant case the petitioner was ultimately not prevented to board the aircraft as such he was not suffering unliquidated damages except suffering from mental pain and harassment to which he is entitled to compensation alone. However, to our views, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and this complaint petition ought to have been preferenced before the District Forum, Calcutta. But considering the hardship and inconvenience which may be caused to the petitioner, we in the light of aforesaid discussion dispose of the complaint petition by awarding as follows :

WE award directing the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs. 1,293/- proportionately paid on account of difference in fares and also award compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- (One lakh twenty-five thousand) for harassment, mental pain and torture suffered by the petitioner. We also award cost of Rs. 1,000/- for this proceeding. All the aforesaid sums be paid by the opposite parties to the petitioner within fortnight from the date of communication of this order and the petitioner is to communicate this order at once forthwith. Complaint allowed with costs.