Indigo Airlines V/S Puneet Kansal - Consumer Court Case

Punjab

Moga

CC/17/66

Puneet Kansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indigo Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Vinay Kashyap

13 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX,

ROOM NOS. B209-B214, BEAS BLOCK, MOGA

Complaint Case No. CC/17/66

( Date of Filing : 05 Jul 2017 )

1. Puneet Kansal

Advocate, S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Kansal Advocate, Punjab and Haryana High Court, House no. 168, Sector-11 A, Chandigarh, Local address, House no. 490, Basant Singh road Moga

Moga

Punjab

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Indigo Airlines

Corporat Office, Indigo, Level 1, Tower C, Global Business Park, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon- 122002, Haryana through its Director

Gurgaon

Haryana

2. Indigo Airlines

Registered Office, Indigo, Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 through its Director

New Delhi

3. Punjab Tours and Travels

Ahata Badan Singh, Moga through its Manager Mr. Vikas NR Brajindra Model School, Mogs

Moga

Punjab

............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
	Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu PRESIDENT
	Smt. Parampal Kaur MEMBER

For the Complainant:	Sh Vinay Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:	Sh.Tarang Chopra, Advocate

Dated : 13 Jun 2019

Final Order / Judgement

Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1. Sh.Puneet Kansal, complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that he is a practicing advocate of repute and long standing since 1989 at the Bar with main practicing place at Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and having his place of residence at House No. 168, Sector-11, Chandigarh and also at Moga. The case of the Complainant is that he bought a package deal of airlines of Opposite Parties, Delhi-Goa (5 days-4 nights) (01.09.2016-05.09.2016) which included the airline tickets and hotel accommodation at Goa for a vacation. As a part of this package deal, the Complainant and his wife were booked two tickets for Delhi-Goa flight of Opposite Party airline on 01.09.2016, round trip, with return flight on 05.09.2016. Though the factum of booking and other facts are not in dispute by Opposite Parties, still a copy of the same is appended herewith. The Complainant further alleges that the booking was got done through Opposite Party No. 3 at Moga on 4.7.2016. The Complainant and his wife reached the Indira Gandhi International Airport Delhi on 01.09.2016 at about 4.00 PM through Volvo Bus of Haryana Roadways. Thereafter, the check-in baggage was handed over at the Indigo counter at about 4.00 PM only (almost 3 hours before the scheduled departure of the flight). Thereafter, the Complainant and his wife were issued boarding passes and both of them went through the Security Check thereafter and waited for their flight. As per the ticket, the flight 6E 341 from Delhi to Goa was scheduled to depart at 18:35 PM, however, the same was delayed for about 10-15 minutes. At about 18:50 PM, the boarding was allowed. As per the procedure, the scanning of boarding passes of all the passengers was done including of the complainant and his wife. Both of them boarded the flight and took their respective aircraft seats. However, at about 19:00 PM, one of the flight attendants/ officers of the airline came and sought to confirm the identity of Complainant. On identity being confirmed, he told the Complainant that he is afraid that the Complainant would have to come down the plane as there is some problem with the check-in-baggage. Upon this, the Complainant got up from his seat. However, the flight attendant/ officer concerned then called upon complainant’s wife to also get up and de-board the plane. This alarmed the Complainant and he enquired as to why both of them are being asked to de-board the plane, when the flight was almost ready to take off. However, the flight attendant concerned told them that he is only complying with the instructions issued to him and is not concerned with the reasons for which de boarding is being asked for. By this time, both the Complainant and his wife had already become centre of attraction amongst the other passengers sitting at the rear portion of the aircraft, who were all looking towards them. Finding the situation very awkward, embarrassing and also feeling the sense of humiliation, both of them had no choice but to de-board the plane. Thereafter, both of them enquired from the staff of the airlines on the runway as to why they have been made to de-board the plane at the 11th hour. However, the staff/ officers were evasive in their approach and not willing to give any satisfactory reply. Upon this, the Complainant told the staff/ officers present near the plane that both of them were practicing lawyers at Punjab and Haryana High Court and not to be treated in such manner and they have a right to know the reasons for de-boarding them, which is quite a serious matter. It is only thereafter that the staff/ officers concerned told them that the check in baggage contains power bank of the mobile, as a result of which the said check in baggage has not been cleared for loading in the plane. This was strongly protested by them on the ground that there was neither any such condition in the tickets sent to them nor there was any public display or announcement at the airport in any manner whatsoever regarding the said condition that the power bank is not allowed in the check in baggage. It was further protested as to why it took so long for the airlines people to point out the said situation when the check-in baggage had been handed over to the airlines at about 4 PM i.e. almost 3 hours earlier in point of time. However, the staff/ officers concerned told them that the said issue can be raised by them with the higher officials at the airport and that it is not possible for them to travel to Goa in the flight 6E 341. Despite strong protests and finding no alternative, both of them travelled back to the airport lounge. The officer sitting at the Indigo counter was told specifically that they need to talk to the higher officials regarding the said issue. Thereafter, both the Complainant and his wife were accosted by one of the staff members of the airline to the waiting lounge meant for the passengers and were told to wait for some time so as to enable the staff to return the baggage belonging to them. Upon this it was inquired from the said staff member as to what would happen to their flight to Goa. However, the concerned staff member did not give any satisfactory reply and told them just to be in the lounge. Upon this the Complainant talked to the person/ lady sitting at the counter of Indigo airlines in the waiting lounge and told the lady that some senior official should be called to the waiting lounge so that this issue can be taken up with them. Upon reluctance being shown, he had again to disclose their identity as lawyers to prevail upon the person sitting at the counter to call upon senior officer to come to the waiting lounge. Then one of the senior lady officers came to the waiting lounge. It was clearly told to the said officer that the said lapse on the part of the airlines is very serious and that the same is unpardonable. It was inquired from her as to what would happen to their flight to Goa. Upon this, she responded very casually that they will have to wait for the next flight to Goa on the next day and they should make arrangements for overnight stay of their own. Finding no alternative, again the Complainant told the officer that both of them were practicing lawyers and would have to resort to legal remedies against the airlines for harassment, humiliation and mental agony. It is only thereafter that the said lady officer told them to wait and re-appeared within 5 minutes. She handed over 4 boarding passes i.e. 2 for the flight from Delhi-Ahmadabad (6E 157) and 2 boarding passes for the flight from Ahmadabad-Goa (6E 947). Then an officer was made to accompany them to the boarding area. After that, said officer guided the complainant to the basement where the check in baggage was handed over and he was asked to remove the power bank from the baggage, which was duly done. However, the complainant was told that the power bank can not be allowed to be carried and the same would be discarded by the airline people. However on complainant’s insistence, the power bank was kept by the airlines people in MHB Duty cell and told to collect the same on return to Delhi. The contact number 09717003731 of MHB Duty cell was also given. Thereafter, the flights as detailed were undertaken by both the complainant and his wife at great inconvenience and discomfort. Whereas they were scheduled to land at Goa around 9:00 PM, on account of unwarranted situation created by Opposite Party airlines and they reached Goa at about 12.30 AM of 02.09.2016. Hence, due to the extreme stress and strain for such a long time, the wife of the complainant developed severe acidity the next morning and had to take medicines for the same. They could not enjoy the whole day of 2^nd September on account of being extremely tired and strain of the previous night/ day and remained confined to the hotel. On 5.9.2016 they collected the power bank from Indigo counter in the arrival hall at Delhi on their return flight. Legal notice dated 13.12.2016 was served upon the Opposite Parties, but instead of expressing regrets for the total callous, irresponsible and unprofessional approach on part of Opposite Parties airlines, the Opposite Parties sent reply dated 3.2.2017. In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and as such, the Complainant is left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

Rs.5 lacs for inconvenience and discomfort;
Rs.10 lacs for the awkwardness, embarrassment and humiliation while being made to leave the seat in the aircraft and then for being de-boarded in front of co-passengers;
Rs.2.5 lacs for extreme stress and strain;
Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
And any other relief to which this Forum deems fit may also be granted to the complainant.

2. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable as it has been improperly instituted without following the procedure laid down under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This Forum does not have jurisdiction to try and decide the same. It is further alleged that InterGlobe Aviation Limited neither carries on business or has branch office or works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Even assuming, without admitting that the present complaint discloses any cause of action, the same does not wholly or in part arise within the jurisdiction of this Forum. However, without prejudice to the above, it is verily submitted that the complaint is devoid of and does not disclose any cause of action as against answering Opposite Parties. As per database of answering Opposite Parties, which constitutes the primary record for air travel with it, a booking was made in the name of the complainant and his wife for two return air tickets for travel on 1.9.2016 from New Delhi to Goa and on 5.9.2016 from Goa to New Delhi on board Indigo Flight No(s). 6E-341 and 6E-388 respectively. Said tickets were booked under PNR No.U8BM9P and said booking was undertaken on behalf of the complainant by a third party travel agency i.e. Opposite Party No.3. It is submitted that aforementioned booking was governed by certain terms and conditions of carriage known as “IndiGo Conditions of Carriage-Domestic” which were available at the website of InterGlobe Aviation Limited and were also made known to the complainant/ its booking agent and agreed to at the time of booking and the bookings were only processed by InterGlobe Aviation Limited after acceptance of the IndiGo CoC by the complainant/ its booking agent. Therefore, the IndiGo CoC constituted a binding contractual agreement for air carriage between the complainants and InterGlobe Aviation Limited. A copy of the IndiGo CoC, as applicable on the date of booking is annexed. Further IndiGo CoC is equally applicable to bookings undertaken through third party travel agencies, like Opposite Party No.3. Additionally, the statutory framework under the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the rules/ regulations made thereunder, also prohibit the carrying of lithium ion batteries (which includes a power bank) in the checked in baggage on board the air crafts of any Indian airline including InterGlobe Aviation Limited. In order to comply with the applicable laws, passengers are advised not to carry power banks in their checked-in baggage not only by the IndiGo CoC, but also by way of conspicuous hoardings/ displays at the New Delhi Airport itself. Additionally, the staff members of InterGlobe Aviation Limited routinely patrol the check in area to enquire whether passengers are carrying power banks in their checked in baggage and in case they are, request such passengers to remove the same from their checked-in baggage. Further, as borne out by Article 12.1 of the IndiGo CoC, the baggage of all passengers is subjected to security screening prior to boarding the aircraft and a secondary check may also be carried out near the boarding gates before embarkation as stipulated by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security of India. It is further alleged that the security screening of checked in baggage is conducted by the security authorities deputed at New Delhi Airport, namely the Delhi International Airport (P) Limited security authorities alongwith the Central Industrial Security Force and as such, InterGlobe Aviation Limited is not responsible/ liable for security screening of baggage after the same has been checked in by passengers. In the present case, during the mandatory screening of the baggage checked in under PNR No.U8BM9P by DIAL Security, it was found that the said baggage was carrying a security restricted article, i.e. a power bank. Accordingly, the officers of InterGlobe Aviation Limited were instructed by the DIAL Security to ensure that the said piece of baggage was not loaded into any flight could only be re-allowed after the removal of the said power bank. It is pertinent to mention here that by the time of the said instructions were communicated by DIAL Security to the staff of InterGlobe Aviation Limited, the complainant had already boarded his flight. Pursuant to the instructions received from DIAL Security, the staff of InterGlobe Aviation Limited approached the complainant and his wife being the passengers booked under PNR No.U8BM9P, and requested them to accompany the staff to the security level of the airport in order to conduct a physical screening of the baggage and remove the power bank. As is evident from the complainant’s own admission in the complaint, the baggage contained a power bank which was subsequently removed by him on the instructions of the staff of InterGlobe Aviation Limited and DIAL Securities. By the time the said baggage was ready to be boarded, the complainant’s flight had already departed. Hence, it is solely on account of the complainant’s own negligence and failure to comply with the contractually binding IndiGo CoC and the applicable laws, despite the fact that he was advised regarding the same at multiple junctures, that the complainant and his wife could not fly on board their flight. As per the IndiGo CoC, passengers are solely responsible for complying with all laws and regulations and further InterGlobe Aviation Limited is not liable for refusing to carry a passenger if it determines that such refusal is required for compliance with the applicable laws and regulations etc. This is borne out of Article 16.1 of the IndiGo CoC, as applicable on the date of booking. Therefore, from a bare reading of the IndiGo CoC, it is manifest that InterGlobe Aviation Limited is not liable for the complainant and his wife missing their flight on account of carrying a power bank in breach of the IndiGo CoC and applicable laws. Despite this, without the admission of any liability and purely as a service gesture, the staff of InterGlobe Aviation Limited offered to re-accommodate the complainant and his wife on board IndiGo Flight No(s) 157 and 971 from New Delhi to Ahmadabad and Ahmadabad to Goa respectively on the same day. Said offer was accepted by the complainant and his wife and as a result they successfully flew to their destination on board the said flights. Further, InterGlobe Aviation Limited was not obligated in any manner to return the seized power bank to the complainants, and could have discarded the same. However, purely as a service gesture, the staff of the InterGlobe Aviation Limited agreed to retain the power bank of the complainant in its possession so that the same may be collected from them on his return to Delhi. This was done without the admission of any liability and for the purpose of reducing the loss suffered by the complainant on account of his own negligence. Therefore, it is submitted that InterGlobe Aviation Limited has acted in strict accordance with the IndiGo CoC and applicable law while providing services to the complainant and his wife. Further, in the present complaint, the complainant has arbitrarily claimed an amount of Rs.17,72,000/- without providing any basis for the same. Although InterGlobe Aviation Limited maintains that the complainant has not suffered any loss on its behalf, any alleged loss suffered by the complainant was purely on account of his own negligence and failure to comply with the IndiGo CoC and applicable laws, therefore, InterGlobe Aviation Limited is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant with respect to the air travel in question, much less arbitrarily amount which has been claimed by the complainant. On merits, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took up almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3. Opposite Party No.3 appeared in person and file the separate written reply of the complaint of the complainant by contesting the same. However, it is admitted that the booking of the package of the Indigo airlines was got done by the complainant through Opposite Party No.3 at Moga and the booking was done entirely to the satisfaction of the complainant and there is no deficiency on the part of the answering Opposite Party. It is further alleged that the complainant apprised the answering Opposite Party about the discomfort, humiliation, inconvenience etc. caused to them on account of the alleged callous, careless, irresponsible, unprofessional approach of the Indigo airlines and the answering Opposite Party can not be blamed for the same. Whatever deficiency of service is there, the same is on the part of the Indigo airlines and the answering Opposite Party No.3 who had done only the booking can not be blamed for the fault of Indigo airlines in not doing the baggage check within reasonable time on account of which the whole problem arose. The answering Opposite Party had no role to play in the said episode. So much time taken by the staff of Indigo airlines in doing the baggage checked up, which should not have taken more than one hour. It is for the airlines to explain as to why it took three hours for the baggage check. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavits Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, copy of ticket Ex.C3, copy of certificate Ex.C4, copy of news item Ex.C5 & Ex.C6, copy of legal notice Ex.C7, copies of postal receipts Ex.C8 and Ex.C9, copy of reply of notice Ex.C10, copy of power bank complaint Ex.C11, copy of updates of Business Standard Ex.C12 and closed his evidence.

5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Ayushi Aggarwal Ex.OP1,2/1, copy of letter of authority Ex.OP1,2/2, copy of certificate of resolution Ex.OP1,2/3, copy of fresh certificate of incorporation Ex.OP1,2/4, copy of conditions of carriage Ex.OP1,2/5, copy of detail of reserved flights Ex.OP1,2/6, affidavit of Rahul Kumar Ex.OP1,2/7 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.

6. Similarly, Opposite Party No.3 also tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.3.

7. We have heard the complainant as well as Ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and Opposite Party No.3 and also perused the written arguments filed by the Complainant as well as of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and gone through the documents placed on record.

8. (i) The main issue involved in the present complaint is whether Opposite Parties have de-boarded the Complainant and his wife from the plane illegally or they missed the flight on account of power bank in their carriage baggage which is not permitted by rules, regulations and law?

(ii) Is there any deficiency in service or Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Parties?

The Complainant has alleged that terms and conditions regarding that power bank of mobile phones are not allowed in carriage baggage were never disclosed to them, hence these terms and conditions are not applicable upon them. To rebut this allegation, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 relied upon the jugement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Interglobe Aviation Ltd. vs. N. Satchidanand (2011) 7 SCC 463. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observations which are germane to the present dispute:

“31. Placing the conditions of carriage of the web-site and referring to the same in the e-ticket and making copies of conditions of carriage available at the Airport counters for inspection is sufficient notice in regard to the terms of conditions of the carriage and will bind the parties.The mere fact that a passenger may not read or may not demand a copy does not mean that he will not be bound by the terms of contract of carriage. We cannot therefore, accept the finding of the High Court that the term relating to exclusive jurisdiction should be ignored on the ground that the passengers would not have read it.”

So, it is very clear that the terms and conditions available at the website of Airlines and Airport Authorities are sufficient notice in regard to the terms and conditions of the carriage and will bind the parties. In present complaint, one Ms.Aayushi Aggarwal, legal counsel with InterGlobe Aviation has filed her affidavit as Ex.OP1,2/1 to the effect that contents of the reply are true to the best of her knowledge and belief. Thus, she solemnly affirm and declare that terms and conditions are displayed at their website, hence we hold that, as per the jugement Interglobe Aviation Ltd. supra, no separate disclosure of the same to the parties is required and these terms and conditions are binding upon parties.

Further, the Complainant in para No.6 of the complaint has stated that they told Opposite Parties that de-boarding them is quite a serious matter. Therefore, staff/ officers concerned told them that the check-in baggage contains power bank of the mobile, as a result of which the said check-in-baggage has not been cleared for loading in plane. Further, in para No.9 of the complaint, the Complainant has stated that officer handed over 4 boarding passes i.e. 2 for the flight from Delhi-Ahmedabad (6 E 157) and 2 boarding passes for the flight from Ahmedabad-Goa (6 E 947). In paragraph No.10, the Complainant has alleged that officer asked to remove the power bank from the baggage, which was duly done.

Article 101. of the IndiGo CoC, as applicable on the date of booking, stipulated as under:-

“10.1-Items Unacceptable as Baggage or to be carried inside Baggage.

IndiGo reserves the right to refuse carriage of such Baggage or such items found in the Baggage as stated below: For more details on permissible/ prohibited goods, please refer to our Website or write to us at

Power Banks are allowed only in hand baggage.

xx xx xx

Additionally, the statutory framework under the Aircraft Act, 1934 (hereinafter “Aircraft Act”) and the rules/ regulations made thereunder, also prohibit the carrying of lithium ion batteries (which includes a power bank) in the checked-in-baggage on board the air crafts of any Indian airline including InterGlobe Aviation Limited.

In order to comply with the applicable laws, passengers are advised not to carry power banks in their checked-in baggage not only by the IndiGo CoC, but also by way of conspicuous hoarding/ displays at the New Delhi Airport itself. Additionally, staff members of InterGlobe Aviation Limited routinely patrol the check-in area to enquire whether passengers are carrying power banks in their checked-in baggage and in case they are, request such passengers to remove the same from their checked-in baggage.

Further, as borne out by Article 12.1 of the IndiGo CoC, the baggage of all passengers is subjected to security to security screening prior to boarding the aircraft and a secondary check may also be carried out near the boarding gates before embarkation as stipulated by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security of India. Article 12.1 of the IndiGo CoC, as applicable on the date of booking, stipulated as under:

“12.1 Screening