South Mumbai District Commission Holds Air India Liable For Providing Defective Business Class Seats With Reclining Issue
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai bench of PG Kadu (President), GM Kapse (Member) and SA Petkar (Member) held Air India liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for providing defective seats with reclining problem. The bench directed Air India to pay a compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the Complainant along with litigation costs of...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai bench of PG Kadu (President), GM Kapse (Member) and SA Petkar (Member) held Air India liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for providing defective seats with reclining problem. The bench directed Air India to pay a compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the Complainant along with litigation costs of Rs. 20,000/- incurred by him.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased a return ticket for Mumbai-Delhi-Toronto-Delhi-Mumbai of Air India flight, with the onward journey scheduled for June 3, 2023, and the return on June 24, 2023, for which a payment of Rs. 4,21,000/- was made by him. Throughout the travel period, the Complainant encountered issues with the business class seats, which were defective and did not recline properly. This led to discomfort, backache, sleeplessness, and fatigue lasting over 14 hours. Despite raising these concerns during travel and subsequently through email correspondence and letters, the Complainant did not receive satisfactory resolution from the Air India. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Air India.
In response, Air India admitted fault and offered a resolution via email. It proposed non-transferable travel vouchers equivalent to 75% of the ticket value for the Delhi-Toronto-Delhi journey (INR 1,18,000/-) with one year validity, along with a non-transferable travel voucher worth INR 10,000/- for the Toronto-Delhi leg with the same validity period. However, the Complainant stated that this offer was unsuitable.
Air India didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that the Complainant endured significant inconvenience and suffering during the return journeys on June 3, 2023, and June 24, 2023. The seats allocated to the Complainant were defective, failing to recline properly, which led to discomfort, backache, sleeplessness, lasting for over 14 hours. Despite efforts made by crew members to rectify the issue, the District Commission noted that the seat remained partially reclined and eventually required replacement after a prolonged period of discomfort. This resulted in the Complainant having to shift their belongings to a different seat which led to embarrassment and inconvenience in full view of other passengers. The District Commission noted that the same ordeal was repeated during the return journey on June 24, 2023, where the allocated seat again proved non-functional.
Therefore, the District Commission noted that Air India failed to provide adequate service by supplying faulty seats for a long air journey. It held that this constituted a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice on the part of the airline.
The District Commission held that full refund of the ticket price was unwarranted due to the completion of the journey, but it acknowledged that it was right of the Complainant to reasonable compensation. Consequently, the District Commission ordered Air India to provide a compensation of of Rs. 80,000/- to the Complainant along with litigation costs of Rs. 20,000/- incurred by him.
Case Title: Rear Admiral Anil Kumar Saxena, Retired vs Air India Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 169/2023
Advocate for the Complainant: Alok Bhat
Advocate for the Respondent: Ex-parte