ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in not allowing the complainants to board the flight even though they had boarding pass and were intime in the boarding gate to fly from Bangalore airport to Hongkong, for refund of the ticket amount of Rs.80,154/- towards the cost of rescheduled air tickets, a sum of Rs.43,860/- paid towards the travel insurance, Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, tension, damages and for Rs.10,000/- towards legal notice charges and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

The complainant NO.1 is the wife of complainant No.2, complainant No.3 is the friend of complainant No.2.  All of them booked air ticket in order to go to Hongkong through flight No.6E1773 being operated by OPs.  The ticket was booked through Frontier Tours and Travel on 25.02.2019 and the journey date was on 25.04.2019 and the flight to take off on that day at 22.40 hours.  They checked in and got the boarding pass and deposited their baggage at 20.45 hours and the boarding pass bearing No.132, 134,122 was given to them.  They also crossed the immigration check and security check and they were sent to boarding gate 32 at Kempegowda International Airport.  There were no staff of OP present at the gate No.32.  Complainant offen approached airport enquiry counter regarding opening of the boarding gate from 21.00 hours to 23.29 hours.  The security staff informed that they would make official announcement regarding opening of the gate, and the name of the passengers holding the confirmed tickets and asked them to wait in the lounge.  The ground staff of OP neither made any announcement of the flight arrival and opening of the boarding gate nor announced the name of the complainant to board the flight.  Once the passengers are checked in their movements are restricted to a very sensitized waiting area.  When it is not a silent airport, announcement should have been made to the passengers.  It was disappointing also as to why the airline did not make any call to the passengers when the boarding passes were already issued.  It was the bounden duty of the OPs to make announcement to board the flights who have confirmed tickets.  The complainant saw some passengers rushing at gate No.32, they went, enquired about the details of the flight and came to know that for the same flight they were waiting.  They showed their boarding pass at the gate at 23:29 hours. The boarding gate pass were scanned and allowed them to board the flight.  Within two minutes, they were called back by OP No.1 men from the boarding gate and the boarding gate was closed and they were denied boarding inspite of holding the boarding pass and confirmed ticket.  Their passports were snatched and the OP ground staff deleted the entries made in their system saying that the flight has already been departed and they cannot board the flight.  When they questioned about non announcement of opening of the boarding gate, they behaved rudely, unethically negligently without allowing the complainant to board the flight and also did not admit their mistake for not making the announcement.  They immediately checked the status of the flight over mobile and the flight departure was delayed by 12 minutes.  Ground staff of OP not only lied to them but willfully denied the boarding. Hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in not allowing them to board the flight when they were well in time and were issued boarding passes.  Though the boarding gate was not yet closed, they were not allowed deliberately.  

3.      Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the Commission and filed the version admitting that the complainant booked the ticket through the agent for the flight 6E1773 to commence the journey at 23:40 hours on 25.04.2019.  It is contended that they are to follow the condition of the carriage(EOC) and the same will be binding on the complainant.

4.      It is the specific case of the OP that the complainant ought to have reported at Gate No.32 on 25.04.2019 before 23.15 hours i.e., 25 minutes prior to the schedule time of departure of the flight i.e., 23.40 hours. Whereas, the complainants though got the boarding pass, got the security check clearance and immigration clearance, did not report at Gate No.32 of the Bangalore International Airport within the said time and hence they reported lately and hence it was considered as and marked as “no show”.  Despite having no obligation on the part of the OPs, and it is due to the negligence in failing to adhere to the stipulated time line, complainants were accommodated to go to Hongkong on payment of difference in fair and re-accommodation fee in the next immediately available Indigo flight to Hongkong.  The said re accommodation offer was willingly and voluntarily accepted by the complaints.  30 passengers were booked along with the complainants were checked in and boarded successfully, travelled on board flight No.6E1773 on 25.04.2019 whereas, the complainants failed to report at the gate on their own default and negligence.  They reported at the boarding gate at 23.36 hours which was 16 minutes prior to the alleged delayed departure time of the flight and 4 minutes prior to the schedule and actual departure time of the flight.  There is no material placed by the complainants to substantiate that they reported at the boarding gate within the mandated time and that their boarding passes were scanned and allowed to board the aircraft and within two minutes they were recalled, their boarding passes and tickets were snatched.  

5.      The complainants were admittedly late in reporting at the boarding gate.  They were very well aware that they should report at the boarding gate 25 minutes prior to the time of departure.  In the absence of which they considered it as no show for which as per the indigo GOC complainants booking amount cannot be repaid and liable to forfeited. 

6.      It is admitted by the complainant that they were late in the reporting gate and they informed the staff member in the gate that they last their boarding pass and were searching for the same, hence there was delay in reaching the boarding gate on time.  Since they reported belatedly they were denied the boarding to the aircraft and as per the GOC it is a “no show”.  The complainants were informed for re accommodation by rebooking for the next available flight to Hongkong i.e., Indigo Flight 6E1773 dated 26.04.2019 subject to payment of the mandatory and applicable re accommodation fee and they paid the amount and rebooked for the said flight.  Complainants are not entitled for re accommodation free of cost, since it is their failure to report in the within the prescribed time to board the flight.  The complainant willingly and voluntarily accepted the re accommodation offer and paid the amount and obtained the ticket.  The check in formalities and reporting for boarding within the stipulated time is the responsibility of the each passenger.  The records reflect that 169 passengers are booked on the Indigo flight on that day, out of that seven passengers including three complainants made a “no show”. The manual announcements at the boarding gate calling out passengers for the final call for boarding were also made by the staff at the gate, but there was no response from the complainants presence. The official records speaks that the complainants reported at 23:36 hours just four minutes before the schedule time of departure and 21 minutes after the boarding gates were closed.  In order to maintain their schedules as per GOC boarding gates will be closed 25 minutes prior to the departure time.  Under the terms OP has every right to refuse the carriage to a person who has failed to comply with the conditions president to boarding.  There is no reason for OP to deny boarding to any of its passengers who incompliance with all applicable laws and has completed all the check in formalities and boarding formalities in accordance binding terms of the Indigo GOC.  In view of the same, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice or negligence on its part and for on the part of its employees and hence there is no actionable claim under the provisions of C.P. Act 1986 and there is no basis for the complainants to file the complaint and the one filed is on misconceived facts and hence prayed to dismiss the same by denying all the allegations made in each and every para of the complaint.

7.      In order to prove the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

8.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 & 2:             In the Negative

                                        For the following.

REASONS

9.     POINT No.1 AND 2:-

   Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  From the documents produced that to in particular Ex R5, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the complainants reported at the boarding gate at 23:36 hours which is just four minutes prior to the schedule time of departure and 21 minutes late from the time prescribed.  Though from the records it becomes clear that the complainants reported in the counter and obtained and handed over the baggage to the authorities and passed through the security and the immigration, it is not mentioned as to why they did not report well in time.  They had ample time to report at the gate No.32 on that day to board the flight for which they had booked.  

        10.   It is pertinent to note here that the complainant along with two others booked the ticket for package tour along with other passengers numbering 36 persons. When all the other persons who have booked for the same flight could able to board the flight it is not explained as to why the complainants did not make it.  It cannot be believed that these persons name were not called or the flight details were not announced at gate No.32 on that day.  If that was being so, all the other passengers would not have boarded the flight.  The OP is bound by indigo GOC terms and conditions, and all the other airlines in order to keep the schedules on time, barring the clearance to be given by the air traffic control.  In this case, as could be seen from the documents produced and from the circumstances, the complainant themselves are responsible for reporting belatedly in the gate and hence they were denied to board the aircraft.  Hence we are of the opinion that the complainants have failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is due to their negligence only they missed the flight, for which they have to blame themselves and not anybody else. Hence we answer point No.1 in the negative and direct the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to OPs towards the litigation expenses for making a false litigation against the OPs. Hence we answer point No.2 also in Negative and pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is Dismissed with cost.
2. Complainants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to OPs towards the litigation expenses for making false allegation against the OPs.
3. The complainants are further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 26^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: CCTV footages

Ex P2: Copy of the RTI Application

Ex P3: Boarding pass

Ex P4: Photos

Ex P5: Copy of the Company master data

Ex P6: Air tickets of the complainant

Ex P7: visa copies of the complainant

Ex P8: Itinerary of the complainants programme

Ex P9: Status report of the Indigo Airlines

Ex P10: The details of hotel accommodation

Ex P11: Travel insurance

Ex P12: Cost of ticket paid to board ferry,

Ex P13: Return ticket

Ex P14: Hotel room rent at Hong Kong

Ex P15: Copies of the air ticket dated 26.04.2019

Ex P16: Copy of the legal notice

Ex P17: RPAD receipt.

Ex P18: Copies of the status report

Ex P19: Referral slip of Hong Kong Department

Ex P20: Letter dated 10.07.2019 sent to Kempegowda International Airport

Ex P21: Reply notice

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P22: Photos of boarding passes dated 25.04.2019

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri.Rahul Kumar

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Board resolution

Ex R2: Letter of Authorization

Ex R3: Conditions of carriage

Ex R4: Screen shot of PNR details

Ex R5: Time to show the arrival of the complainant and the boarding gate

Ex R6: Re-accommodation of PNR details

Ex R7: Details of passengers flight status

Ex R8: Flight manifesto

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT