DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2023
Filed on: 23/09/2016
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC NO. 88/2020
Between
COMPLAINANT
A.K. Thomas, C/o. Aniyan Jacob, 6/68545, Unity Splendor Kallepurathu Road, Thrikkakkara P.O., Pin 682021
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
The Chief Executive Officer, Indigo Airlines, Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapar House, 124 Janpath, New Delhi 110001.
(Rep. by Adv. Harikrishnan M.s., Das & Associates, Ambady Lane, Kochi 682011)
FINAL ORDER
Sreevidhia T.N., Member:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant had purchased Indigo Airline tickets for travel from Cochn-Doha, Doha-Cochin under PNR RLS3RN.
On 28th August, 2019, the complainant had travelled to Doha and the return ticket from Doha to Cochin booked for travel on 25th September, 2019.
Unfortunately the complainant was not able to travel on the booked date due to the bad health of the complainant. Hence the validity of Visit Visa extended till 26/11/2019.
In connection with this the complainant had sent an e-mail to Indigo asking them to allow the complainant to travel return journey on 25/11/2019 or to refund return fare. Indigo declined the complainant’s request stating that they are entitled only for a 14 Riyal tax refund which they credited to the original mode of payment whereas for the subject ticket the complainant had paid QAR 366 as tax. The complainant states that Airport Authority of India would never ask Indigo Airlines tax for unused tickets, because tax is applicable for used sectors only.
The complainant also states that if any reserved seats go vacant all the airlines fill it from the waiting list. The complainant states that waiting list passengers means those are either revenue passengers who have paid full ticket charges or staff travelling under rebate or free tickets or those travelling under subject to load tickers whose ticket fare is free but they pay tax regardless since airlines levy taxes on all rebated and free tickets. Indigo get taxes from the passengers listed on waiting list and hence they have no right to decline the complainant’s request. Hence the complainant approached this Commission filing this complaint getting direction to the opposite party for get return air fare chares QAR 834 Tax 366 (less 14)= QAR 352, court expenses QAR 1000, total QAR 2186 equivalent to INR 43160/- along with cost and compensation.
- Notice.
Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission. Opposite party appeared and filed version contenting as follows:
- Version of opposite party
The opposite party contented that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has neither pleaded nor been able to establish that there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice by Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the above present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
It is submitted that the opposite party is in strict compliance of law and of the contract between the complainant and Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. ie, the binding terms of the Indigo conditions of carriage and the complainant has failed to prove or even identify any case of lack of deficiency on the part of opposite party and therefore the present complaint is not maintainable.
Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. has already refunded the ‘No show taxes’ of QAR 14 in the account from which booking of the complainant was originally made in terms of the contractually binding Indigo Coc on 17/11/2019 and no further refund is liable to be made to the complainant.
The complainant was aware of the binding terms and conditions of carriage known as Indigo conditions of carriage-International which govern the rights and duties of the complainant and Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. the opposite party states that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. Vs. N. Satchidanand (2011) 7 SCC 463 observed that “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 counter 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.”
The opposite party states that complainant was aware of the check-in deadline ie. to report to the Doha Airport at least 3 hrs. prior to the scheduled time of departure of ensure they are checked in the Indigo Flight and 1 hr. and 15 minutes prior to scheduled time of departure of the Indigo Flight. The complainant was obliged to report to the check-in counter at Doha Airport at least 1 hr. and 15 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time of the flight ie. latest by 900 hrs. on 25/09/2019. That the complainant did not report to the check-in counter on 25/09/2019. No intimation regarding missing the Indigo Flight No. 6E-1704 from Doha was made by the complainant on 25/09/2019 ie. the day of the flight or even any other day thereafter, up until 17/11/2019 when the complainant first contacted the customer relation team of Inter Globe Aviation Ltd.
Complainant was a counter no show on 25/09/2019 and approached Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. for a refund of the booking amount on account of bad health on the date of travel, only on 17/11/2019 ie. after a delay of almost 2 months. The customer relation team of Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. purely as a goodwill gesture, offered to look into the complainant’s case by requesting him to share valid medical documents in support of his claim of bad health on the date of travel and these documents were requested for in e-mail dated 23/07/2020.
The complainant failed to provide any document in support of his claims of bad health on 23/02/2020 or thereafter in response to the e-mail dated 23/02/2020 sent to the complainant by the customer relation team.
As per the official records of Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. which serve as primary record of carriage with Indigo Airlines two passengers namely A.K. Thomas (complainant) and Elizabeth Thomas were booked for travel on 28/08/2019 from Cochin to Doha on board Indigo flight No. 6E 1703 under PNR No. HJLFTD on payment of a sum of INR 63792 on 25/05/2019 from Doha to Cochin on board Indigo Flight No. 6E1704 under PNR No. RL53 RN on payment of a sum of QAR 1200. Completing the check in formalities and reporting for boarding within the stipulated timeline is solely the passengers’ responsibility which the complainant failed to do for the Indigo flight. Since the complainant had not reported for check in within the prescribed timeline or even at all the staff of Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. was constrained to declare the complainant and his accompanying passenger a ‘No show’ for the Indigo flight and as such the entire booking amount of the complainant was liable to be forfeited.
- Evidence
The evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which were marked as Exbt. A1 and A2.
Opposite party filed evidence by way of an affidavit along with 5 documents. Even though 5 documents are filed along with the proof affidavit they are not seen marked and the case posted for hearing to 29/03/2023 and then adjourned to 08/06/2023.
On 08/06/2023, both sides were absent and hence posted for orders.
- Points taken for consideration in this case are
- Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
- If so, reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience we have considered issue No. (1) and (2) together.
Exbt. A1 is the ticket for the journey on 25/09/2019 from Doha to Kochi for 2 passenger Mr. Alunkal Kuriakose and Mrs. Elizabeth Thomas. Even though complainant was not able to travel on the booked date ie. on 25/09/2019 the complainant’s son extended the Qatar Visa of the complainant till 26/11/2019. The complainant had requested the opposite party to allow the complainant to his return journey on 25/11/2019. The complainant also requested for refund of the ticket fare of the return journey is not possible through Exbt. A2 mail. The customer relation of Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. informed the complainant that if the booking is not cancelled and the travelling passenger is unable to check in 75 minutes prior to the flight scheduled departure time, the passenger will be entitled as no show and only the applicable taxes will be refunded.
The opposite party also informed that as per the conditions of carriage, the applicable taxes will be refunded within 7 to 10 working days.
The complainant has produced only two documents in this case.
The booked journey did not take place only due to the inconvenience of the complainant. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that he is entitled to a full refund of the ticket, the journey which was delayed due to the complainant’s own inconvenience.
The opposite party in their version states that since the complainant had not reported for check in within the prescribed timeline or even at all the staff of Inter Globe Aviation Ltd was constrained to declare the complainant and his accompanying passenger is ‘No show’ for the Indigo flight and accordingly the complete booking amount of QAR 1200 was liable to be forfeited except for the ‘No show taxes’ of QAR 14 which were refunded to the account from which the booking for PNR No. RL63RN had been processed. The opposite party also states that opposite party had acted in accordance with the law applicable to the airline industry in India and the binding terms of the Indigo.
In the absence of sufficient documents no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved towards the complainant by the opposite party.
In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:
“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgement of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 4 , this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent...” 20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. 5, held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under: - “28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 25th day of August,2023.
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
D.B.Binu, President
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence:
Exbt. A1: Copy of ticket
Exbt. A2: Copy of e-mail
Opposite parties’ evidence
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 88/2020
Order Date: 25/08/2023
