Airlines-Consumer Protection Project ( 06th Apr)

8/10/2019 Airlines-Consumer Protection Project ( 06th Apr)

1/25

Consumer Protection Act

Group Members:

Rohit Singh (MP12056)Sahdev Saran (MP12058)

Sankalp Mallick (MP12061)

Santosh Kumar Singh (MP12063)

Sonal Raghuvanshi (MP12066)

Sunil Kumar Singh (MP12068)


2/25

Topics Covered in This Presentation

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

The Salient Features of Consumer Protection Act

Who is a Consumer [Section 2 d]

Important Explanations in regards to consideration, consumer & commercial use

Definition of Complaints

Given Assignment

Case Study: Indian Airlines Vs Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay

Case Study: Alliance Air Limited Vs. Daljit Singh Nirman

Case Study: Cathay Pacific Airway Ltd Vs Sri Arun Kumar Sircar and Smt. Nilima

SircarCase Study: AJAY KAILA & OTHERS Vs AIR INDIA LTD

Case Study: M/s York Knitwear Vs M/s Luftansa & Others


3/25

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Treated as a milestone in the history of socio-economic legislation to protectthe interests of the consumers in India.

Main objective: To ensure the better protection of consumers.

How is it different from other Law?

Not punitive or preventive in nature.

Provisions of this Act are compensatory in nature.

Provides simple, speedy and inexpensive redressal to the consumers

grievances and relief of a specific nature and award of compensation whereverappropriate to the consumer.

1993 Amendment: To extend its coverage and scope and to enhance the

powers of the redressal machinery.


4/25

The Salient Features of Consumer Protection Act

The Act applies to all goods and services unless specifically exempted by the Central Government.

It covers all the sectors whether private, public or cooperative.

It enshrines the following rights of consumers:

Right to be protected against the marketing of goods and services which are hazardous to life and

property of the people;

Right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods or

services so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;

Right to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of goods and services at competitive

prices;

Right to be heard and to be assured that consumers' interests will receive due consideration at

appropriate forums;

Right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and

Right to consumer education.


5/25

Who is a Consumer:Definition by Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act

Any person who

i . Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid

and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, and includes any

user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid

or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred

payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does notinclude a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;

or

ii. Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or

partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, and

includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of

the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised,

or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the

approval of the first mentioned person


6/25

Important Explanations

CommercialPurposedoes not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used

by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-

employment.

THE GOODS ARE BOUGHT FOR CONSIDERATION

Consideration have not been defined in the Consumer Protection Act. To be construedaccording to the Indian Contract Act.

ANY PERSON WHO USE THE GOODS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE BUYER IS A

CONSUMER.

Law construes users of the goods as consumers although they may not be buyers at thesame time. The words with the approval of the buyer in the definition denotes that

the user of the goods should be a rightful user.

Note: This is an exception to the general rule of law that a stranger to a contract cannot

sue.


7/25

Complaints

Complaint: An instrument through which aggrieved consumer seeks redressal.Consumer can not complain against his each and every problem. The Act has

provided certain grounds on which complaint can be made.

Relief against these complaints can be granted within the set pattern.

[Section 2(1)(c)] Whatconstitutes a complaint

Complaint is a statement made in writing to the National Commission, the

State Commission or the District Forum by a person competent to file it,

containing the allegations in detail, and with a view to obtain relief provided

under the Act.

[Sections 2(b) & 12] Whocan file a complaint

A person who can be termed as a consumer under the Act can make a

complaint.


8/25

Complaints Cont

[Sections 2(b) & 12] Who Can File a Complaint

To be specific on this account, following are the persons who can file acomplaint under the Act:

A consumer;

or

Any voluntary consumer association registered under the CompaniesAct, 1956 or under any other law for the time being in force;

or

The Central Government or any State Government;

orOne or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers

having the same interest;

or

Beneficiary of the goods/services


9/25

Complaints Cont

[Section 2(1)(c)] What a Complaint Must Contain

An unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by anytrader;

The goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more

defects;

The services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from

deficiency in any respect on the functional part of service provider.

A trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the

price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods

or any package containing such goods.

Goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when used, are being offered for sale

to the public in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force

requiring traders to display information in regard to the contents, manner and effect

of use of such goods.


10/25

Given Assignment

Statement:Mr. Sajith purchased an air ticket worth Rs.10,000/- to fly from Delhi toMumbai from Indian Airlines.

Problem:The flight got delayed by one hour due to low visibility caused by fog.

Objective:Mr. Sajith wants to sue Indian Airlines.

Assignment:Advise Mr. Sajith regarding the redressal mechanism available to himunder the Consumer Protection Act.

Our Advise:No complaint could be filed against Indian Airlines.

Reason for Advice:Services did not suffer from any deficiency in any respect on the functionalpart of service provider.


11/25

Case Study:

Indian Airlines Vs Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay

Case supporting the reason of our advice:

As decided in case of

Indian Airlines Vs Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay (1-1991(1) CPR )

Since reason of delay was beyond the control of the airline company hence the passenger was

not entitled to any compensation. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below:

Flights may get delayed due to various causes such as poor visibility in the airfield, bad

weather, bird hits, tyre burst while landing or take off, sudden strike by any crucial section of

Airlines staff etc. all of which may be factor beyond the control of the Airlines. In such case the

delay cannot ordinarily be attributed to negligence on the part of the Airlines. There may

however be other instances where the delay in operating a flight might have been caused byreason of negligence on the part of the Airlines staff.

In the present case also since the flight was delayed due to low visibility caused by fog which

was for a reason beyond the control of Indian Airlines and hence Mr. Sajith should not seek to

sue the Airlines.


12/25

Case Study:Alliance Air Limited Vs. Daljit Singh Nirman

Appeal No in District Forum: 492/2000. Date of order by district forum: 18.08.1999

Case:

Sh. Daljit Singh Nirman booked himself by Flight No. ICCD 421 scheduled to leave Delhi on26.09.1996 at 10.10 hours for Jammu and when he reached the airport for check in, he wasinformed that flight shall leave at 12.00 hours, whereas it actual took off at 14.00 hours and

therefore he suffered physical discomfort, mental agony by waiting for about six hours and asa result he could not reach Jammu in time nor could he attend the meeting at Jammu, forwhich he was going there.

Fact:

flight in question was clubbed with flight No.IC423 which was schedule to arrive from fromKhajurao due to failure of Hydrologic system flight that had reached Khajurao at 8.30 a.m on

25.09.1996 could not proceed further.

Judgement of District Forum:

On account of late running of the flight, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated18.08.1999 held the appellant guilty for deficiency in service and directed it to pay Rs.5,000/-as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost.


13/25

Counter Complaint Case No. in state forum: 575/199. Date of order by State forum:28.11.2006

Judgement of State Forum:

Here the consumer was kept waiting for six hours whereas he had already left for the airport

two hours before the scheduled time. The District Forum has taken very conservative view

while awarding paltry compensation of Rs. 5,000/- as the mental agony, physical discomfortand emotional sufferings were enormous.

Every Airlines operating from Delhi shall pay minimum compensation of Rs.10,000/- to every

domestic passenger in case there is delay in departure and arrival of two hours or more than

the schedule time and Rs.20,000/- in case of International flights of Airlines of this Country, if

delay is more than four hours or so. Condition is that such a delay should not be the result ofbad weather or act of nature, poor visibility, tyre burst or bird hits and the like as every other

cause of delay is manmade and is within the control of human being.

Source: http://www.consumerhelpindia.com/delay.html

Case Study:Alliance Air Limited Vs. Daljit Singh Nirman
http://www.consumerhelpindia.com/delay.htmlhttp://www.consumerhelpindia.com/delay.htmlhttp://www.consumerhelpindia.com/delay.htmlhttp://www.consumerhelpindia.com/delay.htmlhttp://www.consumerhelpindia.com/delay.htmlhttp://www.consumerhelpindia.com/delay.htmlhttp://www.consumerhelpindia.com/delay.htmlhttp://www.consumerhelpindia.com/delay.htmlhttp://www.consumerhelpindia.com/delay.htmlhttp://www.consumerhelpindia.com/delay.html


14/25

S.C. CASE NO- FA/243/2011; DATE OF FILING : 23.05.2011; DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 02.01.2012

Case fact:

On 01st June07 Complainants had booked two confirmed conjunction air tickets with wheel

chair assistance tickets to travel in Cathay Pacific Airways through their travel agent-OP-3 at a

cost of Rs. 1,16,180/- for their to and fro journey from Kolkata to Los Angles.

They reached Bangkok airport via Hong Kong by Cathay Pacific flight.

Cathay Pacific Airways had booked their onwards journey from Bangkok to Kolkata in IC 732

of Indian Airlines and they were asked to obtain boarding pass at Bangkok Airport for IC 732.

The baggage was tagged at Los Angles in the Cathay Pacific Airways with information thatthey will receive the baggage in Kolkata.

On arrival at Bangkok Airport on 01st Nov07 the officials of Cathay Pacific let them in the

wheel chair to the concerned of IC 732 for taking boarding pass.

Case Study:Cathay Pacific Airway Ltd VsSri Arun Kumar Sircar and Smt. Nilima Sircar


15/25

Case fact (Contd):When reported, the staff of the counter informed them that flight IC 732 has been withdrawn long ago

and they were helpless to issue boarding pass.

Travellers were also instructed to receive their check in baggage.

They made continuous request to the staff for two confirmed tickets to the Kolkata, but no staff of Cathay

Pacific Airways was found around.

Miraculously one lady officer without disclosing her identity led them to a plane for Delhi and arranged

two confirmed seats.

She handed over a slip to them for showing it to the officer on duty at Delhi who will arrange for their

journey to Kolkata.

She also assured that their baggage will reach safely to Kolkata.

The officer-in-charge at Delhi International Airport instructed them to take away their baggage.

On rigorous customs checking they had to bear the brunt to carry the five luggage by Taxi to the distant

domestic Airport.



16/25

Case fact (Contd):At the domestic Airport when they handed over the said slips to the officer-in-charge,

the said officer informed them that the seats are fully booked. If anyone cancels

booking then they might get tickets.

After a long wait they however obtained two confirmed tickets in IC 202 against

cancellation and reached Kolkata in late evening after suffering a painful andunfortunate difficulties as well as hazards.

On 07th Dec07 Complainant lodged a complaint to the Cathay Pacific Airway Ltd

demanding compensation of US$25,000 to each of them for their miserable sufferings.

On 04th Jan08 Cathay Pacific Airway repudiated their claims.

Complainants filed a petition of Complaint praying for direction upon the OPs for

payment of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to each of them.



17/25

Judgement:IC 732 of Indian Airlines had not informed about cancellation of IC 732 of Indian Airlines flight to the

Cathay Pacific Airway Ltd.

Therefore Cathay Pacific Airway Ltd was not in a position to inform Sri Arun Kumar Sircar and Smt. Nilima

Sircar about the cancellation of the said flight.

Sri Arun Kumar Sircar and Smt. Nilima Sircar had purchased tickets before five months of their journey(01.06.2007) and their schedule tickets in the said flight was on 01.11.2007. In the mean time i.e. since

15/16 October, 2007 the Indian Airlines Authority has withdrawn the said flight, but the said information

was not duly intimated to the Sri Arun Kumar Sircar and Smt. Nilima Sircar by any of the Airport Authority

as well as by Indian Airlines.

Indian Airlines and Travels& Cargo Services (World Private Limited) shall pay either severally and/or

jointly a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Sri Arun Kumar Sircar and Smt. Nilima Sircar in total for harassment,mental agony and deficiency in service within 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, failing

which the abovementioned amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. for the default

period.

Source: http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htm

http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htmhttp://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/40120103103456626243-FA-11.htm


18/25

Case Facts:Mr. Ajay Kaila & others contending along with his family members travelled

from New Delhi to Dubai by Air India Flight and suffered ordeal on their return

from Dubai to New Delhi.

Mr. Ajay Kaila along with his family boarded flight no. AI-0746 from Dubai toNew Delhi on 2nd January, 2007.

The time for departure was 1700 Hours. Travellers left their hotel in Dubai at

1530 Hours.

After reaching the Airport Mr. Ajay Kaila found that the departure time of the

flight was 2030 Hours.

They reached the Airport and checked in at the counter at Dubai Airport.

Case Study:AJAY KAILA & OTHERS Vs AIR INDIA LTD.


19/25

Case Facts (Contd):They further noted that the flight was further delayed by another 3 hours.

Thereafter, the flight took 5 hours for landing whereas a normal flight takes 3

hours to reach Delhi from Dubai.

Flight landed in Mumbai Airport instead of Delhi Airport.

At the Mumbai Airport, the complainants and all other passengers were kept

waiting endlessly in the lounge for more than 24 hours without any sleep, rest

and proper meals.

No personnel Air India cared to intimate the reason and/or the cause of

piecemeal extension.

Mr. Ajay Kaila claimed a compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/- for each passenger.



20/25

Judgement:Court issued a detailed guidelines to be incorporated in field of:

Delayed Flight

Flights departing ahead of schedule

Flights Overflying Scheduled Stops

Rerouted or Diverted flightsCancelled Flights

Major Delays.

M/s Air India Ltd was directed to place the aforesaid Regulations at a

prominent place at every airport in the country from where it operates.

Secondly, it shall publish the Summary of these Regulations in one or two

paragraphs in TheTimes of India.

Source: http://ncdrc.nic.in/CC1707.htm

http://ncdrc.nic.in/CC1707.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/CC1707.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/CC1707.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/CC1707.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/CC1707.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/CC1707.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/CC1707.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/CC1707.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/CC1707.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/CC1707.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/CC1707.htm


21/25

Case Fact:M/s York Knitwear Limited booked consignments through M/s Sunrise Freight Forwarders (P) Ltd, and he

was assured by service provider that goods would be delivered at Moscow within 4/5 days which was the

normal time taken for such delivery by the Airlines. M/s York Knitwear Limited received a telephonic call

from its buyers from Moscow on 26.12.1993 that none of the goods covered by the aforementioned four

consignments sent to them had reached Moscow and the.

M/s York Knitwear Limited wrote a letter to the General Manager, Lufthansa Air Cargo Division, Delhi on

27.12.1993 regretting that they had booked their goods with the opposite parties who had not lived upto

their reputation as responsible carriers and requested that the goods be sent to Moscow before

31.12.1993.

It was further mentioned in the letter that after 01.01.1994 the Russian Custom Duty structure was also

changing to the detriment of the traders.

M/s Sunrise in turn wrote to:

The Cargo Manager, Lufthansa German Airlines,

The Manager, Cargolux Airlines International

The Cargo Manager (Exports) Lufthansa German Airlines

Case Study:M/s York Knitwear Vs M/s Luftansa & Others.


22/25

Case Fact (Contd):Though the three consignments were booked with Cargolux and one with

Lufthansa and all the four were ultimately dispatched from Delhi through

Lufthansa Airlines.

On 11.01.1994, M/s York Knitwear Limited directly faxed their letter to Lufthansa

Air Cargo Division, Frankfurt, stating that the consignment contained woolen

seasonal goods which were perishable and consumable in nature and were likely to

get damaged and they would also go out of season/ fashion due to the delay.

Only on 20.01.1994 that Lufthansa gave the first meaningful response confirming

that the goods had been airlifted from Delhi but the same were still stuck inFrankfurt as no flight was being operated due to congestion in warehouses in

Moscow.

The consignees refused to accept the goods as the bumper season of Christmas/

New Year was over. The goods are now dead stock for M/s York Knitwear.



23/25

Case Fact (Contd):

M/s York Knitwear filed a case against the parties shipping the

consignment and submitted that the only stand taken by the

opposite parties is that due to congestion in Moscow.

M/s York Knitwear argued that the stand taken by the opposite

parties is nothing but an afterthought and is factually incorrect. In

support of this contention the complainant has pointed out that

in another case the goods were sent by the company through

another airline i.e. Aeroflot from Delhi to Moscow and the same

were delivered at Moscow on the next day.



24/25

Judgement:There is a clear indication of abnormal delay in delivery of cargo by Lufthansa.

Adequate proof was not furnished that godowns in Moscow were full and it was not possible to deliver

the cargo at Moscow. Lufthansa also had neither contradicted the statement made about the prompt

delivery of cargo by Aeroflot nor had adduced any evidence to disprove this contention of M/s York

Knitwear.

Court noted that there had been a clear cut case of deficiency in service by Lufthansa.

The amount payable to M/s York Knitwear for the delay in dispatch of goods came to Rs.21,70,197/-.

For the delay of dispatch of goods to Astrovaz D, the amount payable to the complainant came to Rs.5

lakhs.

Amount i.e. Rs. 26,70,197/- is directed to be paid with interest @ 6% from the date of the complaint till

the date of payment by Lufthansa to the complainant. They shall also pay Rs.25,000/- as costs

Source: http://ncdrc.nic.in/OP16094.htm

http://ncdrc.nic.in/OP16094.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/OP16094.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/OP16094.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/OP16094.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/OP16094.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/OP16094.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/OP16094.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/OP16094.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/OP16094.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/OP16094.htmhttp://ncdrc.nic.in/OP16094.htm


25/25

Airlines-Consumer Protection Project ( 06th Apr)

Documents

Transcript of Airlines-Consumer Protection Project ( 06th Apr)