Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Complaint  Case No.203 of 2013

Vinay Shanker Tiwari aged about 47 yars,

Managing Director of Gangotri Enterprises,

B-158, Sector-A, Mahanagar, Lucknow.       …Complainant.

Versus

1- IndiGo Airlines, Tower C, Global Business

    Park, Mehrauli- Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon,

    (Haryana) through its Managing Director.

2- Managing Director, Cleartrip, Unit No.001,

    Ground Floor, DTC Bldg., Sitaram Mills

    Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Delisle Road,

    Lower Parel (E), Mumbai.                 …..Opposite parties.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Vikas Agarwa, Advocate for the complainant.

None for the opposite parties.

Date  7.10.2021

JUDGMENT

Sri Rajendra  Singh,  Member- In brief the facts of the complaint case are that on 15 April 2013, complainant booked an air ticket from Lucknow to Delhi of OP no.1, Indigo Airline to attend a very urgent meeting which was scheduled on 15 April 2013 at 1 PM in Delhi. The air ticket was booked through OP no.2, Clear Trip and after taking necessary charges i.e., ₹ 4856/–, the air ticket bearing PNR no ERBVLS of IndiGo flight number 6E 141, Lucknow to Delhi, dated 15 April 2013, departure time 10.50 AM was issued to the complainant under trip ID – 1304150526. On 15 April 2013, at the scheduled time complainant reached Amausi Airport, Lucknow and contacted to the Boarding Pass counter

(2)

of the IndiGo Airline at 10.0 5 AM and the executive of the IndiGo issued the boarding pass to the complainant and allotted seat number 5A in the said flight. Thereafter the complainant checked in the flight and seated with his baggage. The departure time of the fight was 10.50 AM. Before departure the flight, cabin crew of IndiGo rudely informed the complainant that his ticket has been cancelled and he can’t fly and when the complainant asked the crew members of IndiGo that why his ticket has been cancelled, they did not reply and forcefully deported  the complainant from the flight at Lucknow – Amausi Airport .

After deporting, the complainant went to the same counter of IndiGo and asked about his deportation on which the executive of the IndiGo informed the complainant that his ticket has been cancelled on the basis of telephone call made by you, which is totally incorrect and baseless because neither the complainant nor on his behalf anyone cancelled the ticket as such both of the OP’s are guilty for wrong cancellation of the ticket of complainant. The complainant suffered a great mental agony as well as felt humiliated for which the OP’s are jointly as well as individually responsible. He made a protest on the same day i.e, 15 April 2013 through email. OP no 2 gave the reply of the email and they enquired the matter from the IndiGo who informed that the ticket was cancelled on the telephone call made by one Mr Shailendra in the morning at 07.38 AM and advised to contact IndiGo airline . The complainant also send an email dated 15 April 2013 to OP no 1 but till date they did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant.  

(3)

Both the opposite parties are guilty for this incident and the complainant could not reach at Delhi and could not attend his urgent meeting for which he suffered a huge financial loss which cannot be compensated by any manner and now instead of making apology and raising their fault, both of the opposite parties/clear trip informed to the complainant that both of the OP’s are deducting ₹ 1000/– as airline charges and ₹ 300/– as clear trip charges and as such both the opposite parties deducted a sum of ₹ 1300/– from the complainant. After the illegal deduction the complainant issued legal notice dated 16 April 2013 to the opposite parties. The complainant is a class I government contractor having lots of projects all over the country and having a very good reputation and due to the illegal act of the opposite parties, the complainant goodwill has been affected. On 15 April 2013 there was an urgent meeting scheduled with the higher authorities of the bank at Delhi for the project having a worth of ₹ 8 crore could not be materialised due to the illegal act of the opposite parties for which only the opposite parties are responsible for paying compensation for the losses suffered by the complainant as well as harassment.

The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for illegal cancellation of the confirmed ticket of the complainant. Since the air ticket was issued by the OP no 1 through their agent ,OP no 2 at Lucknow and the illegal cancellation of the ticket was done by the employees of the opposite parties at Lucknow airport and as such the present complaint is being filed at Lucknow. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble commission may graciously be

(4)

pleased to direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 jointly as well as severally to refund the full amount of the air ticket without any illegal cancellation charges of Rs 4,856.00 with interest at the rate of 18% till the date of payment. The opposite parties be also directed to pay a sum of ₹ 35 lakhs to the complainant as compensation towards the deficiency in services as well as committing Unfair Trade Practice. The opposite parties be also directed to pay the penalty damages of ₹ 50 lakhs to the complainant on account of mental agony. The present complaint be allowed and the opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs 50,000/- towards the cost of the suit.

Notices were sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party no.2 appeared before the court and filed the documents. The service of notice on opposite party no.1 has been held sufficient vide order dated 12^th January 2018. On 30.09.2021, arguments were heard . The counsel for the complainant Mr. Vikas Agrawal was present but none appeared from OP no.2. We perused the pleadings and documents on record.

The complainant has filed following case laws

1. Royal Jordanian Airlines &Ors  Vs  Nanak Singh &Ors , III (2010) CPJ 175 (NC) in which the Hon’ble National Commission has held that where the ticket was jamming but the boarding was denied and the passenger deplaned due to expiration of visa permit. The forum directed Airlines to pay compensation. Any passenger with confirmed ok ticket who comes in time cannot be denied boarding. The Hon’ble national commission

further held that the award of ₹ 5 lakh as compensation by the fora and which has been confirmed by the State Commission appears to be fully justified.

2. Indigo  Airlines & Ors.  Vs.  Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors., IV (2018) CPJ 309 (NC).

         In this case, briefly put, it was averred in the Complaint that Complainant Nos. 1,2, 3 & 4 are family members and were returning from Kolkata to Agartala through Opposite Party Airlines (hereinafter referred to as "Indigo Airlines") and purchased air tickets vide PNR No. IHRNSE.  It was  stated that the subject flight i.e. Flight No. 6E 861 was scheduled to depart on 08.01.2017, at 8.45 a.m. and that all the Complainants reported before the Indigo Airlines Counter at Kolkata Airport on 08.01.2017 and after observing all the formalities, the Airlines issued boarding passes in favour of all the Complainants.  It was pleaded that the Airlines left all the Complainants at Kolkata Airport without informing them despite all the Complainants being in the Airport premises.  A Written Complaint was lodged by Complainants No. 1 and 2 at Indigo Office at Kolkata Airport but the office staff as well as the Airport staff at their counter, did not accept the Complaint Application and forcibly snatched away their boarding passes and further did not pay heed to their request for making alternate arrangements for their flight to Agartala.  The Complainants were forced to return from Kolkata Airport as they did not have sufficient money to purchase fresh tickets and stayed in a hotel room and arranged money for purchasing new air tickets to return to Agartala.

(6)

The District Forum based on the evidence adduced partly allowed the Complaint directing Indigo Airlines to pay ₹16,432/- which is the cost of tickets incurred by the Complainant, hotel expenses of ₹10,000/-,  ₹10,000/- towards compensation and ₹5,000/- towards costs. 

Aggrieved by the said order, both the Complainant and Indigo Airlines preferred Appeals bearing No. A.53.2017 and A.61.2017 respectively before the State Commission.  The State Commission while concurring with the finding of deficiency of service and partly allowing the Complainants' Appeal, enhanced the compensation to be paid by Indigo Airlines from ₹10,000/- to ₹20,000/- while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum. 

The State Commission while holding that there was deficiency of service observed as follows:-

"There is no doubt that a passenger is bound by the terms and contract of carriage, but here in the instant case, question is not regarding the terms and contract of carriage, but to inadequate help and harassment of the complainants.  Admittedly, they collected their boarding passes as issued by the opposite parties-IndiGo well ahead of the boarding time and thereafter the opposite party took away the boarding pass from them and returned their luggage though booked by them at the time of check-in without any reason.  More so, mere filing of the written statement/reply by way of affidavit of the opposite parties cannot be considered as evidence.  Pleading has to be proved by way of adducing evidence.  Admittedly in the instant case, the opposite parties IndiGo did not examine any witness.  The terms and

(7)

conditions which were annexed with the reply were also neither proved by the opposite parties nor exhibited.  Therefore, it is very difficult to accept the contention of the opposite parties IndiGo Authorities that there were repeated announcement made for the benefit of the complainants.  For the argument sake, even if it is admitted that the complainants were delayed in check-in, then the question arises as to why the opposite parties allowed them for check-in and issued them boarding passes and subsequently took away the same.  In Dr. Bikas Roy (supra) this Commission held that ".........After issuance of boarding pass it is the duty of the airlines authority like opposite parties to help the passengers so that they can board the flight in time on completion of the security check-up.".  In the instant case, the opposite parties Indigo Airlines admittedly issued the boarding passes and the complainants handed over their luggage to the IndiGo Authority for the scheduled flight, but the opposite parties IndiGo Authority subsequently returned the luggage and also took away the boarding passes, as a result of which, the complainants were in a helpless condition at Kolkata Airport and they had to stay two days in the hotel with their minor children.  We hope and trust that after issuance of the boarding pass when the passengers enter into the security enclosure, the Airlines Authority should help the passengers so that they can board in the scheduled aircraft after completion of the security measures in time."

Be that as it may, in Clause 8.2 of Conditions of Carriage Passenger & Baggage, Indigo Airlines, under cancellation, change of schedule etc., it is clearly stated that

(8)

that customers who have not provided valid contact information at the time of booking may not be entitled for any compensation. Additionally, in their terms and conditions of booking of a ticket, in their website, it is clearly given as follows:-

"Is it necessary to provide my mobile phone number while booking a flight on IndiGo?

IndiGo's preferred method of contact is via mobile phone and it is mandatory to provide your mobile number at the time of flight booking (https://www.goindigo.in/). Customers can provide a residence or business phone number and valid e-mail ID as additional contact information.  Providing IndiGo with your best contact number(s) will help us make contacting you easier." (Emphasis supplied).

From the afore-noted conditions specified in their own website it is clear that a contact number has to be given to the Airlines at the time of flight booking.  Therefore, it is not understood as to why there is complete silence on behalf of the Revision Petitioner regarding the availability of the contact number of anyone of the family members and the reasons as to why there was no call made.  In these circumstances placing reliance on Clause 8.2. with respect to boarding is also untenable as it is a specific pleading of the Complainants that they were all within the airport premises and still did not board as no specific announcement was made or any effort extended to inform them.

The basic duty of care for a passenger who has been left behind despite issuance of the boarding passes, when

(9)

admittedly boarding passes were issued well ahead of the boarding time and the baggage was also boarded on to the Airlines, is to provide meals and refreshments, hotel accommodation in cases where stay of one more night is necessary and the operating carrier should also pay particular attention to the needs of the accompanying family.  In the case of Denise McDonagh vs. Ryanair Ltd.  C 12/11 European Case Law if an Airline fails to provide care and assistance a passenger can claim refund of the expenses incurred in purchasing their own meals, hotel accommodation etc.  In the European Commission Interpretative Guidelines regarding 'concept of right to care' it has been clearly stated that the extent of adequate care will have to be assessed on a case to case basis having due regard to the needs of the passengers in the relevant circumstances and the principle of proportionality.  The price paid for the ticket or temporality of the inconvenience suffered should not interfere with the right to care. 

M/s Indigo Airlines ought to have provided appropriate care in order to reduce the inconvenience suffered by the passengers as much as possible, while determining the principle of proportionality.  Particular attention ought to have been given as it was a family of four.  At the cost of repetition, the contention of the Counsel that the re-accommodation was offered on payment basis is totally unsustainable in the light of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence on record to establish what the actual charges of re-accommodation and change fees were.  There is a specific pleading in the Complaint that there was absolutely no offer

(10)

made by the Airlines and also that the Complainants were forced to purchase tickets from Kolkata to Agartala on 10.01.2017 from the same Indigo Airlines (6E661) by spending an amount of ₹16,432/-.  The callous attitude of the Airline in not even accommodating them with some ­­­­­­special fare in the next flight, which was their own Airline, is deprecated.  Since the duty of care was not taken by the Airline even though it should have been, and the Complainants had to pay for their meals, refreshments, hotel stay, transport etc. and also pay for tickets of the next flights, we are of the considered view that they are entitled to reimbursement of the expenses incurred from Indigo Airlines as what they have claimed is reasonable and appropriate. It is significant to mention that DGCA while specifying the facilities to be provided to passengers by Airlines due to denied boarding, cancellation of flights and delays in flights' vide circular dated 01.08.2016 has laid down the requirements & procedures regarding refunds and mode of compensation. Additionally, the peculiar facts of the instant case are briefly detailed as hereunder:-

The Airlines has also not furnished evidence from its record showing the time when the boarding passes were issued to the passengers and when the same were cancelled. 

When the Airline can produce the print-out of screenshot taken on 18.04.2017 about the "no show" in respect of the Complainants they could have also produced the details of the boarding passes issued to the Complainants on 8.1.2017.

(11)

The Airline is silent about the list of passengers who were actually issued boarding passes and that of those who actually travelled.

The boarding passes were issued by the Airlines after check-in and not a print out taken by the passengers at home and therefore the boarding passes issued by the Airline carries significant weightage and the Airline should have taken care to see that the passengers boarded the plane specially when the baggage was also checked in. Further, the attitude of the Airline in snatching away the boarding pass is deprecated.

The afore-stated peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand cannot be put in any such straight-jacket formula.  However, keeping in view the requirements specified in DGCA Guidelines, broadly speaking, in effect, it can be construed to be within the ambit of 'Denied Boarding', which warrants providing of meals/refreshments, hotel accommodation and/or accommodation in another flight.   In Finnair Vs. Lassooy C-22/11 European Case Law in fact such cases were also treated as 'Denied Boarding.' It was stated that the concept of 'Denied Boarding' must be interpreted as relating not only to cases where boarding is denied because of over-booking but also to those where boarding is denied on other grounds.   

The Complainants were in a hopeless condition stranded at Kolkata airport where they had to stay for two days in a hotel with minor children and the amounts awarded by the Fora below are fairly reasonable and do not warrant any interference. It is even more relevant to note that though both the Fora below gave a concurrent finding of deficiency of

(12)

service and the State Commission increased the compensation amount from a meagre ₹10,000/- to ₹20,000/-, Indigo Airlines has chosen to challenge the order by way of  this Revision Petition for such a meagre compensation even when the Bench requested the Counsel to take instructions whether they were willing to settle the matter.  We see no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned orders of both the Fora below and keeping in view our limited revisional jurisdiction as envisaged by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  (2011) 11 SCC 269, we dismiss these Revision Petitions with costs of ₹20,000/- to be paid to the Complainants before the executing Court.  

3. Cox & Kings ( India) Ltd  Vs  Prashant Aggarwal &Ors , III(2012) CPJ 537 (NC).

The admitted facts include that the complainants booked themselves with CKL for a holiday tour (01 11.06.2005) from Delhi to Kuala Lumpur/Genting, Singapore and back and paid for the air tickets, visa processing fees, hotel accommodation, meals, sightseeing and a cruise on a luxury liner at Singapore. CKL, as agent of SLA and Star Cruise, booked them on the respective SLA flights (via Colombo) and also on the Cruise.

(ii) The dispute is about the status of the ticket issued to complainant no.1 by CKL for the Colombo-Delhi leg of the air journey on 11.06.2005. The complainants claimed that the ticket of complainant no.1 for this leg of the journey showed OK status right from its issuance at Delhi but he was not allowed to board the flight at Colombo by the SLA ground staff. CKL claimed that

though the ticket showed OK status, the CKL staff had informed complainant no. 1 at the time of issuing that it was actually waitlisted but all the same he chose to go ahead with the tour.

(iii) Complainants also claimed that according to the SLA ground staff, the ticket of complainant no. 2 (wife of complainant no.1) on the same flight was confirmed and he was offered a confirmed seat in the higher class on that flight but he did not agree to pay the difference because his ticket clearly showed OK status. Thus, as complainant no.1 was not allowed on board that flight, both had to stay back in Colombo because they were a newly married couple and she could not travel back to Delhi alone. This led to not only extra expenditure on their forced extended stay in Colombo but also considerable harassment and mental agony till they were both able to get confirmed seats to Delhi on an SLA flight departing on 13.06.2005. The complainants also alleged that contrary to what they were told by the booking staff of CKL at Delhi, the Star Cruise was not for three days and two nights but only two days and two nights.

(iv) On return, the complainants got legal notices issued to CKL and SLA. CKL replied denying any liability for availability of seats on the Colombo-Delhi flight according to the terms of the contract between the passengers and CKL and also that the confirmation slip for the Star Cruise clearly gave the details of departure and arrival from/at Singapore. SLA replied that there

was no privity of contract between the SLA and the complainants as they had not bought the air tickets from nor made any payment to it directly.

However, the allegation in respect of duration of the Star Cruise is not supported by the documentary evidence brought on record. The petitioners other point regarding the quantum of the award in respect of reimbursement of the cost of the complainants extended stay in Colombo is also valid: the complainants had sought Rs. 9,000/- on this count and the awarded amount cannot be higher at Rs. 20,000/-.

The Hon’ble National Commission has ruled “In conclusion, we allow the revision petition only to the limited extent that the petitioner CKL shall pay to the complainants Rs. 9,000/- as against Rs. 20,000/- towards the cost of the latters extended stay in Colombo, all other amounts awarded on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony and costs of proceedings remaining undisturbed. The payment, including the costs for delay condonation, shall be made within 30 days of the date of this order.”

4. Air India Ltd &Ors  Vs  Gokul Chandra Chakrabarti &Anr , II(2019)CPJ 261 (NC).

In this case, Aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2017  in CC No. 288 of 2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short the "State Commission"), the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as "Air India") preferred this Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for

(15)

short "the Act").  By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint in part directing Air India to pay a sum of ₹15,00,000/- to the Complainants within 30 days together with costs of ₹10,000/- with default interest of 8% p.a. 

The State Commission while allowing the Complaint in part observed as follows:-

"First seating arrangement of the Complainants was reshuffled.  It was done despite the fact that confirmed seat nos. were allotted to the Complainants at the time of booking.  Notwithstanding the OPs have attributed it to technical error, one wonders, when the Complainants pointed out the anomaly to an airline official, who introduced himself as Mr. Sarrabjit Singh, Load Master,  why such so called system error was not manually rectified; after all, it is nobody's case that such technical error was beyond reconciliation. 

It appears from the materials on record that the Complainants requested for placing them in the middle of the aircraft and accordingly, suitable seats were allotted to them.  Once request for booking a particular seat is made and the airline concerned confirms such booking, it cannot arbitrarily reshuffle the seating arrangement, particularly if such arrangement cause any discomfort to the passenger.  If we put the sequence of events in proper perspective that ensued following the arguments in between the Complainant No. 1 and the staff of the OP airline at the check-in-counter of the airport, the possibility of acrimony on the part of the concerned staff of the OP airline cannot be discarded as a remote possibility.

(16)

Also, we find that despite confirming in black and white, the OPs did not make any arrangement for wheelchair for the Complainant No. 2 at the Delhi airport compelling her to walk a long distance to board the international flight.  Let us not forget that she did not seek this privilege for her pleasure, but circumstances forced her to seek this patronage from the OP airline.  We find, despite written assurance, the OP airline backed out at the last moment leaving the Complainants in the lurch to fend for themselves.  This is unpardonable.

It appears, although the OP airline tendered apology in a mechanical manner for the harassment of the Complainants, evidently it did not cause any enquiry in right earnest to fix up responsibility.  Little wonder, therefore, that no explanation was sought for from the concerned officials, let alone rolling any head; rather palpably a concerted effort was made to cover up everything.

We find, Manager (VC) in her email dated 29-06-2014 stated that inputs/reports were requisitioned from concerned departments.  However, for some obscure reasons, OPs preferred to keep the same under the wrap. In our considered opinion, therefore, the OP airline cannot escape due liability for the harassment, discomfiture, mental as well as physical stress  and agony of the Complainants.

While we proceed to the arduous task of quantifying appropriate compensation, we find that Complainants have not brought on record any supporting document to establish their ailment for a month in view of such harrowing experience.  Similarly, no tangible proof is forthcoming

(17)

before us that Complainants had to incur heavy financial loss on account of cancellation of prefixed social and religious functions and purchasing air tickets for their guests. 

Although it is argued by the Complainants that since the OPs in their reply letter dated 29-06-2014 did not dispute the allegation of the Complainants in this regard, save and except one formal denial of payment, as such, they did not bring documents against online payment to the agencies.  We afraid, such a feeble alibi hardly makes any sense as it is the settled position of law that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.  Given that, incurring of such payment was made by none other than the Complainants themselves, it was obligatory on their part to voluntarily place the same for our evaluation.  Without having a glance through relevant documents, we afraid, we cannot accord any relief on this count."

Hon’ble National Commission  held, “ We hold Air India deficient in service in pre-allotting the seats and then changing the same without any plausible explanation, both in the domestic as well as in the international sector and thereby causing inconvenience to the Complainants.”

Now we address ourselves to the second contention of the Complainants that no wheel-chair was provided to them at Delhi Airport despite request made by them for the same in the ticket.  A brief perusal of the ticket shows confirmation of a wheel-chair.  It is interesting to note that the Complainants were frequent fliers.  The contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for Air India that as per the Guidelines given by the Directorate-General of Civil Aviation on 01/05/2008 on the

(18)

subject of carriage by air, persons with disability and/or persons with reduced mobility, it will be the responsibility of the persons with disability or reduced mobility to inform their needs at least 48 hours before the scheduled time for departure so that the Airlines makes necessary arrangements, is untenable in the instant case, in the light of the fact that the date of journey was 07.05.2014 and the ticket was issued on 04.03.2014 which is two months in advance and, therefore, it is all the more significant that necessary instructions ought to have been given to the ground staff for provision of wheel-chair.  The confirmed itinerary tickets also had the wheel-chair request 'confirmed' on it.  The argument of the Counsel for Air India that there were no sufficient wheel-chairs at Delhi is unacceptable as request could also be made to the other Airlines operating in the same Airport and also with the Airport Authorities themselves who also have the provision for keeping the wheel-chairs.  On a pointed query from the Bench as to how many passengers were travelling who had requested for wheel-chairs and how many wheel-chairs were actually provided, there was no such information forthcoming from Air India.  Be that as it may, it is a matter of common knowledge that flight No.127 of Air India lands at Terminal 3 of Delhi Air Port and distance from the Domestic to International area is extremely long and tedious and not providing a wheel-chair to a senior citizen who is physically challenged and could not walk, constitutes an act of deficiency of service.  At the cost of repetition, when Air India did not adhere to the Guidelines issued by DGCA, they are bound to pay the compensation for the mental agony and

(19)

inconvenience caused to the senior citizens.  However, we are of the considered view that the compensation of ₹15,00,000/- awarded by the State Commission is excessive as there is no documentary evidence to establish that the Complainants had been bed-ridden for a month and could not attend any religious or social functions only on account of the turbulence in the Aircraft, mental agony suffered on account of change in seats or the physical harassment on account of non-availability of wheel-chair at Delhi Airport.  Hence, we of the considered view that for act of the deficiency of service on the part of the Air India the Complainants are entitled to compensation of ₹5,00,000/-together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint  till the date of payment and costs of ₹25,000/-.  

In the result, this Appeal stands disposed of with the aforenoted directions.

Vide order dated 29.03.2017, this Commission while ordering stay of the impugned order directed Air India to deposit 50% of the decretal amount with the State Commission. Needless to add, the amount of ₹5,25,000/- along with accrued interest thereon shall stand released to the Complainant and the balance amount along with interest accrued, shall be refunded to Air India. However, if the amount deposited by the Appellant before the State Commission along with accrued interest if any and paid/released to the Complainant is less than the total amount payable to the Complainant in that case the Appellant shall pay the balance amount within four weeks from today. The

(20)

statutory amount deposited in this First Appeal stands transferred to Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

5. Shiv Prakash Goenka  Vs.  Lufthansa German Airlines &Ors , I (2015) CPJ 27 (TN).

The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is the Chairman & Managing Director of a group of flourishing companies. The complainant used to travel abroad very frequently and he used to travel only in Business Class / First Class so that his air travel would be comfortable in his advanced age and health conditions. The complainant has undergone three surgeries, and he used wheel chair for boarding the flight. During the month of October 2010 he scheduled his foreign trip and booked his ticket for his entire journey by Lufthansa Airlines / the opposite parties herein. He paid the entire airfare for his journey in business class of the opposite parties airlines. The confirmed seat numbers with the business class were allotted to him well in advance for all the phases of his journey comprising trips from Chennai to Frankfurt, Frankfurt to Madrid, and back to Frankfurt from Madrid and from Frankfurt to Chennai in the opposite parties airlines Seat No.10G in the business class for his scheduled travel from Frankfurt to Chennai on 24-10-2010 in flight No.LH758 was allotted to the complainant well in advance. The complainant has paid the full airfare well in advance for allotment of seat in the business class and he has become a consumer under Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

(21)

On 24-10-2010, the Bell Captain of Sheraton Hotel at Frankfurt Airport brought the complainant to check-in lounge and the complainant produced his E-ticket to the staff concerned. After due check, he was issued the boarding pass. As he had already paid the entire consideration for allotment of seat No.10G in the business class in the said flight and he has been flying in the business class only in the opposite parties airlines for several years without any problem, it never struck him that he should verify the boarding pass. The complainant, after collecting the boarding pass, moved to the aircraft in an electric car which brought the complainant to the boarding gate, and upon boarding the plane, he was frantically searching for his seat in the business class, and at that time a staff of the Cabin Crew conducted the complainant to the Economy Class and showed seat No.28E saying that he was allotted that seat. On seeing that economy class seat was allotted to him, and whereas he had paid for business class, the complainant was rudely shocked and his palpitation soared up and he could not digest such an arbitrary re-allotment of economy class seat after collecting airfare for business class seat by the opposite parties well in advance, duly confirming and allotting his seat in business class. Due to the sudden turn of events, he was rendered dumbfold, and in fact he temporarily lost his presence of mind and agility to agitate and claim restoration of his original seat in the business class. The above agonizing allotment of inferior class seat not only aggravated his ill-health but also mortified his prestige and his companies’ reputation built over decades and he could not regain his posture and presence of mind.

(22)

At this devastated stage, a staff of the opposite party accosted the complainant and literally thrust upon him a compensation voucher for 1500 Euro Dollar saying that the compensation was for the surrender of his business class seat, but the complainant has never thought of surrendering his ticket in the business class on any account. The complainant was very particular about the business class seat at his advanced age and health condition needed such comforts, for which he paid, and further there was no need for him to surrender his business class seat for any pecuniary benefits. The staff, while handing over the voucher informed the complainant that his name had already been announced prior to his boarding the flight as a passenger who surrendered his business class seat, is totally untrue. The complainant never volunteered to surrender his legitimate seat booked in advance on payment of full fare. The complainant was rendered speechless due to the whimsical and uncharitable allotment of an economy class seat without his consent and he could not even register his protest against such allotment of inferior class seat and handing over the compensation voucher and Seat No.28E allotted to him in economy class was a middle seat. Due to his advanced age and health condition, he could not endure the physical strain and being sandwiched between two co-passengers on either side, and he requested for the Aisle seat and he was allotted seat No.35C in the economy class, and though it was inconvenient for him, he reluctantly occupied it with no other option. With great disadvantage, mental agony and hardship, the complainant completed his return trip to Chennai.

(23)

The Hon’ble commission held that a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs would be just and reasonable compensation payable to the complainant. The Hon’ble Commission allowed the complainant partly directing the opposite parties to refund the sum of ₹ 254,410/-being the cost of the ticket and ₹ 20 lakhs as total compensation and ₹ 10,000 as cost.

Now we come to the present case. The opposite party no.2 has stated in his written reply that the entire booking process is system driven and done online based on the entries made by the customer/passenger himself. It is stated that at the time of booking the fare rules of the airline are clearly displayed by the opposite party number two. Based on the parameters, selected/chosen by the customer, an e ticket is generated by the opposite party 2. On April 15, 2013 at about 7.07 hours, and online flight booking was made for travel of the complainant from Lucknow to Delhi by Indigo flight number 6E 141, scheduled departure 10.50 AM. On receipt of payment the booking was confirmed and E-ticket was issued to the registered email ID. On the same day at about 11.15 hours Mr. Pandey called the customer service department of opposite party no.2 to inform that his booking was cancelled. The representative of OP no 2 immediately checked the online system of opposite party No.2 and found that the booking is still live on the system of OP no 2 and the same has not been cancelled online. Opposite party no 2 immediately called the airline at around 11.32 hours to check the status of the booking. The airline executive Mr. Wasim informed the representative of the opposite party no 2 that the

(24)

Airline had received a call from one Mr. Shailendra who had instructed the Airline to cancel the said booking. The Airline had verified the booking details from the said Mr. Shailendra and accordingly the booking was cancelled by the Airline directly at 7.28 hours. This fact was transmitted to Mr. Sunil pandey immediately and the opposite party no 2 also requested the Airline to provide with the contact details of the said Mr. Shailendra Pandey who has initiated the cancellation of the booking. However the airline was neither able to provide any contact details of the said person nor were able to provide the call records. The Airline categorically affirmed that the said booking was not cancelled by opposing party no 2.Therefore it is clear that the booking was not cancelled by opposite party no.2.

We have perused the copy of ticket having PNR- ERBVLS , trip ID – 1304150526. We have also perused the complaint of the complainant sent through email and the response received by the Indigo. There are a number of emails. OP no 1 has informed that the reservation was cancelled with them directly at 07.38 AM on the same day.

Now the question arises that if the ticket having cancelled on 15 April 2013 at 7:21 AM, how did the airline permit him to board the plane? Further question arises as to why did the airline not give the contact details of the said person to OP no.2 ? How the cancellation was made ? Without login this site, how did the person succeeded to cancel the ticket ? When the complainant has stated that he did not cancel ticket and he boarded the plane, there was no

(25)

need to compel him to leave the plane. He had a genuine ticket with him and the money was not refunded till then. The refund processed on 16 April 2013 at 12.38 AM. Is it a.m.? It should be either 00.38 AM or 13.38 PM. None from the airline appeared before this court to put his case or to submit the mobile recording or screenshots or details of correspondence for the cancellation of the ticket. We went through the case-laws referred by the complainant. The opposite party no.2 has clearly stated in his affidavit that the cancellation was not done by them and it is directly cancelled by the Airline.

          In this case, it is really humiliating for the traveler who has been checked in thereafter forced to leave the plane. He has been a contractor having lot of projects all over India and there is no error on his part because he did not cancel the ticket. The total fault is of the opposite party no.1 IndiGo Airlines, so in this case, they are liable to pay heavy damages for such an extreme degree of negligence and hooliganism. Being a top Airline Company no such blunder can be expected from them and if they did, they must pay heavily for it. 

So after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no.1 and also it is unfair trade practice for which the opposite party no.1 is heavily liable. If a person has bordered on a flight and thereafter he is forced to leave the fight, it is an attack on his reputation when he had a valid flight ticket. We have heard many cases

(26)

regarding the highhandedness of airlines. In the present circumstances it is really shocking that such an act has been done by the Airline. So we’re opinion that the opposite party no 1 is liable for such negligence, arbitrariness, deficiency of services and unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled to get the illegal cancellation charges and also is entitled for a compensation of ₹35 lakhs as compensation, ₹50 lakhs on account of mental agony, harassment and ₹50,000/- as cost of the suit. Complainant is also entitled to get interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 15.04.2013 till the date of payment.

As far as the opposite party no.2 is concerned, he is not liable in this case because on his system there was no cancellation of the said ticket. The whole decretal amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this judgment otherwise the rate of interest will be 15%.  The complaint is liable to be allowed accordingly.

ORDER

The complainant is allowed. The opposite party no.1 is directed to pay ₹35 lakhs as compensation, ₹50 lakhs on account of mental agony, harassment and ₹50,000/- as cost of the suit. Complainant is also entitled to get interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 15.04.2013 till the date of payment. The whole decretal amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this judgment otherwise the rate of interest will be 15%.  

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.

(27)

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

       (Rajendra Singh)                              (Sushil Kumar)

     Presiding  Member                                    Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Rajendra Singh)                              (Sushil Kumar)

     Presiding  Member                                    Member

Jafri, PA II

Court 2