DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.165/19
Mr. Pratap Gupta
R/o S-254, Panchseel Park
New Delhi-110017. …Complainant
VERSUS
Air India Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Regd. Office : Airline House
113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road
New Delhi-110001. …Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution : 31.05.2019
Date of Order : 17.03.2023
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking amount of Rs.31,328/- paid for tickets with interest @ 18% from 17.09.2018 till 30.05.2019 (till the date of filing of the complaint) and till actual payments. The complainant also seeks Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment, inconvenience and hardship caused to him.
- It is stated by the complainant that he booked three tickets for Flight No. AI9813 from Dharamshala to New Delhi to meet renowned Dr. Yeshi Dhonden at Mcleodganj as he has been suffering from prolonged illness. He was accompanied by his wife and son.
- It is further stated by the complainant that he paid a sum of Rs.15,577/- towards the booking of the tickets for flight which was to depart at 06.35 AM on 17.09.2018. The tickets are annexed as Annexure C-1.
- It is further stated by the complainant that in the morning of 17.09.2018 he received an information that the flight was delayed by two hours. The said message is annexed as Annexure C-2.
- It is next stated by the complainant that he reached New Delhi Airport at 06.30AM, however, he was not allowed to enter the airport since the ticket that he possessed was printed with flight time 06.30AM. It is stated by the complainant that he requested to reach the counter of the OP from another gate in order to take print out for the revised timing of the flight, however, there was nobody at the seat of the counter of the OP.
- It is stated that he was issued another ticket after waiting for 10 minutes however, his family members and him were not issued boarding passes by the OP alleging that they were late by 5 minutes.
- It is also stated by the complainant that having left with no choice, the complainant bought three tickets for the next flight and had to pay an additional sum of Rs.31,328/- which are annexed as Annexure C-3.
- The complainant then wrote a letter dated 19.09.2018 to the Grievance Cell of the OP requesting them to investigate the matter and to refund the amount of Rs.31,328/-. On his second complaint, a letter was sent by the OP dated 08.11.2018 stating that no refund was permissible and that a reply for letter dated 10.10.2018 had already been sent to the complainant and was enclosed alongwith the said letter. In their letter, the OP stated that the reservation record of dt. 17.09.2018 indicated “no show” states that the complainant had reported at 06.50AM and that the check-in counter was required to be closed strictly 45 minutes before the scheduled departure time therefore, the complainant is not liable to refund.
- It is the case of the complainant that the OP has completely ignored that on account of the negligence of their official at the counter who had left the counter unattended in order to chat with people that 10 precious minutes were lost causing the complainant to only arrive at check-in gate at 06.50 AM. It the case of the complainant that despite various correspondences and legal notices, OP has not replied and the complainant had to suffer a lot on account of mental agony, harassment besides suffering pecuniary losses.
- In their reply, OP has stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the basis of misleading averments and circumstances set out by the complainant. It is stated that the relief sought by the complainant are wholly malafide, bogus, fictitious and the complaint has been filed to extract money from the OP.
- It is next stated by the OP that as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation i.e. Citizen Charter, the scheduled departure time of the domestic flight is indicated on the itinerary receipt and it subsequently provides that flight will not be delayed for passenger arriving late for check in and that the airline accepts no responsibility in such cases.
- The OP, in their preliminary objections have stated that the complainant has neither hired nor availed of any services nor paid any consideration to the OP therefore, complainant is not a consumer.
- It is also stated by the OP that flight bearing No. IA9813 which was scheduled to depart at 06.30 AM on 17.09.2018 from New Delhi to Dharamshala was operated by the AASL and not by the OP.
- It is also stated by the OP that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant has not made the travel agency from whom tickets have been bought, party to the case.
- On merits, it is stated that the initial delay at the entrance is governed by the Govt. Authority i.e. CISF, in which the OP has no role to play and on enquiry it was found that the CISF has directed the complainant to go to the reservation Counter to get the fresh print out of the tickets which would indicate the revised departure of the flight. It is further stated that on investigation it was pointed out that the passenger was given print out promptly without any delay and had the complainant shown the message of rescheduling of the flight to the CISF then there would have been no occasion for the complainant to not enter the Airport.
- It is further denied by the OP that there was any negligence on their part or its officials for which the complainant had to suffer. It is stated that since the complainant reported late and therefore, tickets were considered “no show” and only taxes are refundable as per the airline’s policy.
- In their rejoinder, the complainant had denied that the said flight was not operated by Air India (OP) and have stated that the tickets issued by OP nowhere finds the mention of AASL. It is also stated that the delay (email) in departure was also sent by the OP and not its subsidiary AASL. It is also stated by the complainant that OP has received the consideration amount through its agents and being the principal, OP cannot escape its liability. It is further stated by the complainant that there is no deficiency on the part of the travel agency therefore, they are not a necessary party to this case. In this regard, the complainant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC in Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. Vs. M.N.Tiwari & Ors. FA No.286 of 2010.
- It is also stated by the complainant that the OP has acted negligently and it cannot take shield of the Citizen Charter to conceal its negligence and carelessness. The complainant has reiterated all his averments made in the complaint.
Both the complainants as well as OP have filed their respective evidence affidavits and their written arguments. Oral arguments were heard.
After having gone through the entire material on record, this Commission is of the view that the preliminary objections of the OP cannot be sustained as there is a relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OP. However, it ia also noted that it is the complainant who has to discharge the initial onus of proving the case as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following
“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”
This Commission has gone through the pleadings and documents filed by the parties and find that complainant has not been able to discharge its onus and that the complainant is not able to prove his case on merits. OP cannot be found fault for denying the entry to the passengers reporting late for the flight. The complainant has not been able to show any negligence/unfair trade practice adopted by the OP therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
