Orissa

Cuttak

CC/82/2022

Ramesh Agarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director General, DGCA(Director General Civil Aviation) - Opp.Party(s)

Miss A Dash & associates

09 Aug 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.82/2022

 

1.        Mr. Ramesh Agarwal,

           S/o:Late Arjunlal Agarwal.

 

2.       Ms. Ruchi Agarwal,

W/o: Ramesh Agarwal.

 

Both are resident of :Shree Ram Kutir,

Hazari Lane,P.O:Telenga Bazar,

Cuttack-753009.                                                                                         ... Complainants.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       DGCA(Director General of Civil Aviation),

Represented through its Director General,

Aurobindo Marg,Opp. Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi-110003.

 

2.       Airport Authority of India,

Represented through its Chairman,

Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi-110003.

 

3.       AirAsia India Limited,

Represented through Sunil Bhaskaran is

(MD and CEO) of AirAsia India Kempegowda International Airport,

Ground Floor,Alpha 3 building,Devanahalli,

                   Bengaluru, Karnataka,India,Pin-560300

 

4.       AirAsia India Limited,

Kolkata, 46C,Chowringhee Road,

Everest House,Ground Floor,Kolkata-700071.

                 India.                                                                                                   ...OPP Parties

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   04.05.2022

Date of Order:  09.08.2023

 

 

For the complainants  :          Miss Ashwariya Dash,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.1  :Mr. Amit Gupta(Director)

For the O.Ps no.2 & 3:                                   None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

          Case of the complainants as made out from the complaint petition in short is that on 3.4.2022 the complainants had booked air tickets with AirAsia Airlines having PNR No.13W6JW in Flight no.151563 in order to travel from Kolkata to Bhubaneswar.  On that day of travel, the complainants were asked to generate the boarding passes through online but they were unable to do so for which they had to take assistance of staff of the AirAsia Airlines and could manage to get the boarding passes bearing STD no.1840 and Seq.No.108 and 109 respectively but when they proceeded for security check, they could know that the flight had already taken off.  The complainants were to travel due to medical emergency but could not board the plane.Subsequently, they managed to commence their journey through Indigo Airlines.  They had complained about the same to the O.Ps and ultimately had to file this case claiming refund of the entire amount of money from the O.Ps alongwith compensation from them to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the mental agony and harassment as caused and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of their own litigation expenses.  They have also prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

          They have annexed copies of certain documents in order to establish their case.

2.       Out of the four number of O.Ps as arrayed initially by the complainants in this case, subsequently, by virtue of the memo of the complainants, O.P no.4 was deleted vide order dated 12.8.2022.  O.Ps no.2 & 3 having not preferred to contest this case, both of them were set exparte vide order dated 12.7.2022.  However, O.Pno.1 has contested this case and has filed his written version where in it is mentioned that the  DGCA attached to the office of Ministry and Civil Aviation has no role to play in such matters since because the duty of the DGCA is primarily a safety regulatory one and the  subject of dispute as made here in between the complainants and the Airlines, is a private dispute arising out of contractual obligations.  Accordingly, it is prayed through the written version by the said O.P no.1/DGCA to exclude O.P no.1 from the liabilities in this case.

          O.P no.1 alongwith its written version has annexed copy of the Govt. of India notification as regards to the facilities provided to the passengers by Airlines due to denial in boarding, cancellation of flights and delay in flights etc.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments of the complaint petition, written notes of submissions, the copies of documents as available in this case record, it is noticed that undoubtedly both the complainants had booked air tickets through AirAsia Airlines on 3.4.2022 in order to travel from Kolkata to Bhubaneswar.  They had obtained boarding passes online that day as they say,with the assistance of one of the staffs of AirAsia Airlines.  The boarding passes when perused clearly notifies that 20 minutes before the departure time of the flight, the gate will be closed.  The complainants have not proved through the evidence that if they were present for security check as they say; on the said day right on time without any delay.  Their contentions in this regard is that since because they could not generate their online boarding passes that day they had taken the assistance of one of the staff of AirAsia Airlines.  If this be so, the complainants should have examined the said staff of AirAsia Airlines in order to prove that infact to generate the boarding passes online, they had taken assistance of the said staff of the AirAsia Airlines right before the scheduled time of security check without any delay, so as to apprise this Commission that infact they were not at fault, rather it was the AirAsia Airlines authorities who making the flight take off before-hand and thereby were at fault by causing deficiency in their service towards the complainants/travellers.  In absence of such, this Commission arrives at an irresistible conclusion that the complainants have utterly failed to bring home their case against the O.Ps in order to hold them to be deficient in their service.  Accordingly, this issue goes against the complainants.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainants is not maintainable and the complainants are not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them.

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 9^th day of August,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                         

                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                      President

 

                                                                                                   Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                Member