Consumer Court Impose 7.4 Lakh Fine On Melindo Airlines For 'Unethical Service' (image@ trichyairport.in)
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Court has strongly intervened against Malindo Airlines for disrupting a memorable journey for a family. The seven-membered family was flying to Singapore to celebrate the seventh birthday of their son. The family was held in Singapore saying one of the member’s passport had expired, even though the passport had six more months left. The tickets of the accompanying individuals were also cancelled. After realising the mistake, the company issued another ticket. However, the family, who had planned a four-day trip, could spend only two days in Singapore.
The family include CA Majeed, a lawyer from Kochi, his wife, children and a 70-year-old mother. The ticket was booked through a travel agency. When the complainant’s wife arrived in Kuala Lumpur by a flight from Kochi, the airline denied her a flight to Singapore. The reason given is that the passport does not have six months to expire as she believed. Though the family clarified that she was holding a valid visa and passport it was not considered. Shocking the complainants, the airline also unilaterally canceled the tickets of other passengers in the group.
The complainant’s wife fainted upon receiving this unanticipated move. The authorities did not provide necessary facilities for the family to rest. After long discussions, senior officials intervened and admitted that the travel ban was wrong and the family was brought to Singapore on another flight much later. Meanwhile, the luggage dropped in Kuala Lumpur went missing. As the essential items were in the luggage, they were forced to purchase new ones at high cost. The plan to spend four days in Singapore had to be reduced to two days. The complainant approached the court seeking compensation for unethical service and trade practices.
Only the travel agency appeared in court, and stated that they are only responsible for the tickets, and was not responsible for the inconvenience caused to the complainants. The airlines became ex parte (an exception to the general rule that an adjudication shall be pronounced in the presence of both the parties). The complainants stated in the court that the airline did not raise any such hurdle when issuing the flight ticket. Singapore aviation authorities also did not raise any such issue.
In its order, the commission stated that the airlines have admitted there were mistake on their part in banning the travel. “The court cannot ignore the extreme mental anguish and physical hardship suffered by the family consisting of senior citizens and children”, it said. The court observed the actions of opposite party, which marred the memorable moments of the complainant’s son’s 7th birthday in Singapore, to be inhumane and illegal.
Members of the bench including, D. B. Binu, V. Ramachandran, and T. N. Srividya evaluated that the court is not only providing justice to the complainants but also upholding the dignity of the consumer through this judgment. The court directed to pay a total of Rs 1 lakh each to all the 7 individuals of the family, and Rs 25,000 as court costs.
