A Bangalore-based consumer disputes redressal forum has awarded a compensation of Rs30,000 to a passenger of Air India Limited for deficiency in the service meted out to him by the airline.
A city-based consumer disputes redressal forum has awarded a compensation of Rs30,000 to a passenger of Air India Limited for deficiency in the service meted out to him by the airline.
The II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the airline to pay the amount directly to the complainant — Sukumar, 57, of JP Nagar 6th Phase —- through cheque or demand draft within a month, failing which the airline would have to pay an annual interest of 6% of the amount.
Sukumar had in a complaint filed on August 11, 2010 prayed to the court a compensation of ¤11 lakh for mental trauma, stress and harassment caused to him because of the absence of certain services during his travel from New York to Bengaluru International Airport, Devanahalli.
He detailed three incidents in which Air India failed to provide him with adequate facilities.
He said that the airline refused to accept his Indian Airlines American Express (Amex) card for the payment of luggage charge citing unavailability of swiping machine which accepts such cards causing him embarrassment.
Despite specific agreement, the airline failed to make an arrangement for his travel from New York Airport to New York City, and the airline took four days to hand over a misplaced luggage, he said.
During the hearing, Air India admitted its deficiency in providing services. “BIAL does not have a swiping machine for Amex cards. It has only an HDFC swiping machine which accepts master or visa card,” the defence version stated. The airline also submitted in the court that they could not give limo facility to the complainant to reach the New York City due to some bonafide reasons beyond their control.
After hearing the arguments of the parties the forum comprising SS Nagarale, D Leelavathi and Balakrishna V Masali observed that the services provided by the airline was insufficient and awarded compensation to the complainant. “The defence version clearly amounts admission of deficiency of service,” the forum opined.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}