Haryana

Karnal

CC/670/2022

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indigo Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

Mange Ram Sangwan

08 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 670 of 2022

                                                          Date of instt.29.11.2022

                                                          Date of Decision 08.12.2022

 

Mandeep Singh son of Shri Ranbir Singh, resident of VPO Garhi Birbal, tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     IndiGo Airlines through its Director Corporate office, IndiGo, Level-I, Tower C Global Business Park, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgao-122002, Haryana India.

2.     IndiGo Airlines through its Managing Director IndiGo, Central Wing, Ground floor, Thapar House 124, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 India.

3.     Director General of Civil Aviation, India Aurovindo Marg, opposite Safdarjung airport, New Delhi-110003.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

 

 Present: Shri Mange Ram Sangwan, counsel for complainant.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                  

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant had planned a trip to Bangkok alongwith his friend Ravinder Kumar and one Sanjeev Kumar, who resides in Australia. The said Sanjeev Kumar too had to assemble in Bangkok on the scheduled time, having booked his air ticket for Bangkok from Perth, Australia. Complainant and his friend Ravinder Kumar booked their ticket to Bangkok as a tourist through OP no.1 from IGI Airport Delhi for dated 17.08.2022, the boarding time was scheduled at 5.25 a.m. and also booked return ticket from Bangkok to New Delhi, and their friend Sanjeev, who had already arrived at Bangkok, had also booked his return ticket from Bangkok to Perth for dated 19.08.2022. The complainant had also paid advance rent for the hotel and taxi fare, and they had exchanged Indian Currency with Thai Baht (Currency of Thailand valued about Rs.40,000/-). The complainant and his friend Ravinder Kumar reached on the IGI Airport New Delhi on 16.08.2022 at the schedule time but staff of the OP no.1 did not allow them to board the flight on the lame excuses that complainant want to flee to some other country in a fake way as Donkey. Rather, complainant tried their best to satisfied the OPs with the true facts and show all the relevant documents i.e. Air tickets, hotel booking receipts for stay, receipts of Thai Baht and return tickets, but the complainant and his friend were not allowed to go ahead. They were stopped from entering the airport premises, on the gate of IGI Airport and were stopped to enter in the airplane and to go for their journey, although the complainant and his friend had spent a lot of money on purchasing air tickets and other expenses. The friend of complainant Sanjeev Kumar, after waiting for complainant and his friend in Bangkok, too had to return to Australia from Bangkok. Complainant and his friend suffered a financial loss of approximately Rs.one lakh and due to this act and conduct of OPs complainant was forced to face mental pain and agony, financial loss and the reputation of complainant in society have been lower down. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 15.09.2022 but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             Today the case is fixed for consideration on the point of admissibility. Arguments on the point of admissibility heard. Record perused.

3.             A careful perusal of the file reveals that the complainant alleged that complainant and his friend was going to Bangkok on tourist visa but OP no.1 did not allow them to board the flight on the ground that they want to flee to some other country in a fake way as Donkey. If any doubt creates on the passenger, OPs have every right  not to allow to board the flight.  The decision of denial of boarding of the flight to the complainant and his friend was taken by Indigo Airlines and airlines have a power to stop the passengers if they failed to justify the reason of travel. OPs cannot be held on fault for not allowing the complainant to board the flight. Not only this, in today's time it has become a fashion for the youth that they have to go to abroad legally or illegally.  Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 08.12.2022

    President,     

District Consumer Disputes                           

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                      (Vineet Kaushik)                      

                          Member

Sushma

Stenographer