|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can an airline indulge in gross overbooking of seats and then cancel confirmed tickets and take no responsibility for it?
This decision has its origin in the complaint filed by Dr Mary Ramaswamy and her two daughters , seeking compensation for their harrowing experience during their travel to Melbourne from Chennai. According to the complaint, the three had confirmed, ‘OK’ tickets to travel from Chennai to Singapore on December 21, 2002 by Indian Airlines and from there to Melbourne via Quantas. However, on the day of travel, they were not allowed to board the flight on the ground that their tickets had been cancelled for lack of reconfirmation! Eventually, they were given tickets to fly the next day and as a result, they missed their flight from Singapore to Melbourne and had to wait at the Singapore airport for 12 hours before taking another flight via Sydney. They eventually reached Melbourne after a delay of 36 hours, causing them endless mental and physical stress , besides added expenditure.
The District Consumer Forum, which first heard the case, asked all the three opposite parties — Travelon worldwide, Chennai (travel agent), Air India and Quantas — to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation to each of the three complainants. The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Commission let Quantas off the hook and held that the travel agent and Indian Airlines should jointly and severally pay the damages. The airline, in its revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , argued that only the travel agent was liable to pay the damages. It contended that it was the peak season, the airline had overbooked as is the convention and on December 17 as well as 19, asked the travel agent to re-confirm the reservation. Since he did not respond, it canceled the tickets. This was a prevalent practice internationally and there was no deficiency in service, the airline argued. The National Commission however, dismissed this contention and said it cannot exonerate the airline for its action. It pointed out that first of all, the airline had overbooked to the extent of 200 per cent for that particular flight — this was gross overbooking and it had to pay for the consequences. Besides, the tickets were confirmed ‘OK’ tickets and there was no need for any reconfirmation. Even then, if the airline wanted to re-confirm it , the responsibility was cast on it to do so. It cannot take the plea that there was no response from the travel agent and so it cancelled the ticket! "We cannot be oblivious to the rights of the air passengers and duties and obligations cast on the airlines, who had issued the confirmed /O.K. tickets", the Commission said. It also pointed out that the passengers, who had come from a remote part of Tamil Nadu, were left to fend for themselves by the airline. Observed the Commission: . "It is not difficult to visualise the kind of mental harassment and torture the complainants would have suffered during those hours. They were certainly entitled for a better treatment from a National carrier like the Petitioner". The behaviour of the airline thus not only constituted grave deficiency in service, but also an unfair trade practice and the airline should stop such practice forthwith, the Commission concluded, while upholding the compensation and costs awarded to the passengers. This case goes back to 2002, much before the Director-General of Civil Aviation mandated how airlines should treat passengers who are denied boarding. Issued in 2010, the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) on "Facilities to be provided to passengers by airlines due to denied boarding, cancellation of flights and delays in flights", holds the airline liable to pay compensation to passengers who are denied boarding, in addition to refund of the ticket amount. This compensation varies from Rs 2000 to Rs 4000. The CAR also makes it clear that airlines have to provide meals. refreshments and hotel accommodation if need be, to passengers who opt for alternate flights or arrangements. Says the National Commission: Accept responsibility for the mistakes, minimise the inconvenience to the passengers and compensate them for the hardship caused. Or else, you (the airlines) will end up paying much more than what the DGCA has mandated (for denied boarding) because consumer courts will not condone deficient service.
|
|||
|
|
|||
Well,
airlines may argue that they can, but a recent decision of the apex
consumer court makes it clear that such a practice constitutes an
unfair trade practice and an airlines which indulges in such practices
cannot escape liability for its actions.
