Ethiopian Airlines Held Liable For Deficiency In Services, New Delhi District Commission Orders Compensation And Litigation Cost.

Brief Facts

Mr Devanik Saha (Complainant) purchased an air ticket from Ethiopian Airlines for a December 4, 2011 flight from New Delhi to Durban. Saha was an NGO delegate to a UN conference and had "on-arrival Visa support" from UN authorities, exempting him from the standard visa requirement. When he arrived at the airport, the airline declared his "on-arrival visa support" invalid without any explanation. Because of this, he missed his flight and experienced significant inconvenience and delay in attending the conference.

Mr. Saha's baggage was also held up at another location, forcing him to spend extra time and money on clothing and essentials during his stay in Durban. He faced more complications regarding his return when he was told on December 9, 2011, that his return booking to New Delhi had been cancelled without prior notice. Despite sending emails and a legal notice to Ethiopian Airlines (Opposite Party), there was no response. As a result, Mr. Devanik Saha filed a complaint against the airline under the Consumer Protection Act, alleging gross deficiencies in service which caused him mental distress.

Arguments of Ethiopian Airlines

Ethiopian Airlines contested the consumer complaint, stating that the complainant failed to provide any proof of payment for the ticket, implying the possibility that he never actually purchased the ticket from them. Regarding the "on-arrival Visa support", the airline contended that the complainant did not have a prior arrangement due to which they were bound to verify this arrangement with their office in Johannesburg due to security reasons. The Airline argued that the complainant's inability to board the flight on December 4, 2011, was due to this reason only. They asserted that it was already informed to the complainant that he could not board the flight without a Visa for South Africa along with the original UN letter.

Ethiopian Airlines further argued that the delay in delivering the complainant's baggage was not deliberate but rather due to reasons beyond its control. They even claimed to have offered the complainant “USD 75” to cover his expenses related, which was refused by the complainant.

Observations of the Commission

After hearing both the parties and going through the material on record, the New Delhi District Commission allowed the consumer claim raised by the complainant. It held that Ethiopian Airlines was at fault for the deficiency in their services. Consequently, the commission ordered Ethiopian Airlines to compensate the consumer with Rs. 50,000/- for the loss he experienced due to the airline's actions. Additionally, the complainant was awarded Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs. The Airline was instructed to make these payments within six weeks from the date of receiving the order failing which they would be liable to pay interest at a rate of 9% per annum.

Case Title: Mr. Devanik Saha vs. M/s Ethiopian Airlines

Click Here To Read/DownloadOrder

Full View