Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/184/2024

SUNIL JAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIGO AIRLINES THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK AGGARWAL

05 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	184 of 2024
Date  of  Institution	:	04.05.2024
Date   of   Decision	:	05.11.2024

 

 

 

 

1.  Sunil Jand, aged about 70 years, son of Late Sh.Suraj Parkarh Jand, resident of House No.232, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh (U.T.)-160047.

2.  Veena Kumari w/o Sunil Jand, aged about 67 years, son of Late Sh.Suraj Parkarh Jand, resident of House No.232, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh (U.T.)-160047.

             … … … Complainants

 

Versus

Indigo Airlines, Plot Number 151, near HDFC Bank, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh 160002 through its Director/Chairman.

2^nd address:

Tower-C, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Sikanderpur, Sector 26, Gurgugram, Haryana 122002.

   … … … Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA,     MEMBER

                               

Argued by:    Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for Complainants alongwith Sh.Sunil Jand, Complainant No.1 in person.

Opposite Party(OP) ex-parte.

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainants have filed the present complaint pleading that complainant No.1 booked W-Tickets, alongwith two wheel chairs, for himself and his wife Mrs.Veena Kumari i.e. complainant No.2 for travelling from Chandigarh to Bangalore on 11.10.2023, vide Indigo Flight No.6E-6614 departing Chandigarh at 16:45 and reaching Bangalore at 19:35 hours. The tickets were booked by complainant No.1 for proceeding to Bangalore for total knee replacement of his both knees. It is stated that his wife i.e. complainant No.2 had already undergone her knee surgery. It is stated that on reaching Chandigarh Airport on 11.10.2023, no wheel chairs were provided to the complainants and they told to go to Indigo window which was very difficult for them owing to the condition they were suffering as stated above. With great difficulty, complainants could manage to reach the check-in counter located at about 35-40 ft. away instead of going same distance to Indigo window. It is stated that check-in was hassle free and promptly done. On seeking help by complainants from one person wearing Indigo Logo Shirt, two persons were deputed for security clearance. On security clearance, since one hour was there to board the flight at 4.00 PM, complainants requested the persons, deputed by OP, to drop them in business lounge on first floor and also requested to take them for boarding on time. It is stated that nobody came till 4.25 PM to help the complainants which raised the anxiety and blood pressure of the complainants as boarding was being repeatedly announced that there is a sudden change in gate No.3, so the complainants were stranded there upto 4.25 PM. The complainants, reeling in pain, somehow reached gate No.3 and reported whole matter to one girl namely Ms.Ankita, who instead of apologizing started arguing with the complainants. It was at 4.40 PM when two wheel chairs provided and complainants were taken to aero plane.

    It is stated that harassment did not end at Chandigarh Airport, but was repeated by the ground staff at Bangalore Airport as both the ground staff men accompanying wheel chairs left the wheel chairs of the complainants and their luggage trolley just outside exit gate of Bangalore Airport and disappeared, resultantly the complainants were kept waiting them and stranded there till 9 PM. The complainants again requested an Indigo passerby to extend his shoulder upto taxi stand to board it. Thereafter complainants spoke to Indigo Customer Care from Banglore Airport. OP acknowledged vide case number CRN-05636842 dated 11.10.2023 regretting inconvenience caused to complainants during travelling. Since no satisfactory reply came from customer care, the complainants escalated the matter through demand notice dated 16.10.2023 to Mr.Jafar Naqvi, Manager, Customer Experience, Indigo Airlines, who as token of apology offered Rs.2000/- and closed the complaint without taking any action against the defaulters. Thereafter, the complainant sent reminder email dated 03.12.2023 to GoIndigo Airlines but to no avail. On 13.03.2023, complainant No.1 wrote e-mail to Mr.Ambuj Sharma, PGO, GoIndigo and requested for expediting reply as soon as possible. It is stated that referring to his complaint against ground staff of Indigo, Mr.Jafar Naqvi, Manager Customer Experience vide his e-mails dated 24.12.2023 and 25.12.2023 extended apologies once again offered token apology of Rs.2000/- as the best they can offer, making mockery of complainants thus adding insult to their injury/woes. On 01.02.2024, one Ms.Isha Gandhi, Nodal Officer, vide her e-mail, also apologies for the inconvenience caused to the complainants.

    It is stated that during return journey on 17.02.2024 from Bangalore to Chandigarh, after surgery of both knees of the complainant No.1, complainants faced the same problem at the Bangalore Airport as only one wheel chair was provided to complainant No.1 by stating that their staff on duty was less and wheel chairs were also less in numbers. The complainant No.2, by holding wheelchair of complainant No.1, walked up to the bus with great difficulty due to her knee surgery done in 2022, to ferry the complainants to aero plane. It is stated that complainants passed through a very panic situation/knee pain, but no compensation has been paid to the complainants. The OP do not envisage precious lives of the complainants and is comparing the same with just Rs.1000/- or Rs.2000/- bucks. It is stated that it was a shocking and horrifying experience for the complainants jostling their vital organs with stress, pain, fear and mental agony. Alleging the aforesaid acts on the part of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainants have filed the present complaint with a prayer to award compensation for immense mental agony & harassment and cost of litigation.

2]       The OP did not turn up despite service of notice, hence, OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03.09.2024.    

3]       Complainants led evidence in support of their contention.

4]       We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants & complainant No.1 in person and have gone through entire documents on record.

5]      The point for consideration is as to whether the OP is guilty of rendering inefficient or deficiency of service to the complainants who were aged people travelling from Chandigarh to Bangalore through the flight of Indigo or not?.

6]       It is observed from the record that the complainants booked the tickets along with two wheel chairs, one for complainant No.1 aged 70 years (proceeding to Bangalore for total knee replacement) and another for complainant No.2 aged about 67 years (already undergone knee surgery). Annexure C-3(colly) is copy of the Air Tickets Tax Invoice. Annexure C-4 & C-5 are the copies of the medical record of complainants. It is not disputed that the complainants were confirmed passengers in the flight of OP and they boarded the flight at Chandigarh on 11.10.2023 for travelling to Bangalore. The contention of the complainants are that due to their knee replacement/surgery, they were to move in a wheel chair instead of climbing staircase and walking, but, to their surprise, the ground staff did not accommodate wheel chair and they were forced to walk, in spite of there being a specific request to provide wheel chair, in view of the fact that both the complainants having knee problem. The other contention of complainants is that this deficiency of service in not providing wheel chair and not taking their proper care resulting in great hardship and inconvenience to the aged coupled who were travelling from Chandigarh to Bangalore. It is the bounden duty of the Airlines that they should take care of the passengers minute to minute, specifically when the passenger is aged and suffering from ailment. Annexure C-6(colly) are the copies of email correspondence between the parties which indicates that the OP as token of apology offered a voucher of INR 2000 to the complainants and apologies for all the inconvenience caused to the complainants.

7]       The OP did not appear to contest the claim of the complainants and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte. This act of the OP draws an adverse inference against it. The non appearance of the OP shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainants. Therefore, the assertions of the complainants go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP is proved.

8]       In the light of above observations & findings, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the OP. The complaint is partly allowed. OP is directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to complainant No.1 & 2 on account of mental agony and physical harassment including litigation expenses.

        The above said order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. of the above mentioned amount thereafter.

 

9]       The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules 2020 & Act 2019 respectively. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

05.11.2024                                                                

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA)

MEMBER

as