Delhi

North East

CC/88/2019

Vishnu Dutt Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indigo - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 88/19

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Vishnu Dutt Sharma S/o Shri I.C. Sharma R/o:- C-247, Street No. 6, Hardev Puri Shahdara, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
	Indigo Through Managing Director/Office Incharge Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapar House 124, Janpath, New Delhi-110001	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF ORDER :

06.09.19 02.05.22 29.08.22

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

    Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The Case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant had booked an online air ticket from Delhi to Hyderabad for three passengers vide booking ID No. 5908825664 through flight of Indigo 6E-303, PNR No. MF 984G departure scheduled at 06:50 a.m. dated 27.09.2018 amounting to Rs. 8,031/-. Complainant had also booked returned ticket from Hyderabad to Delhi for three passengers vide booking ID No. 5909024891 through flight of Spice Jet SG-126, PNR F5ZL3V departure scheduled at 21:25 p.m. dated 28.09.2018 amounting to Rs. 9,813/-. Complainant stated that he reached at the Airport before the scheduled time and took the boarding passes and kept on waiting for announcement of flight. It is alleged that no announcement was made by the Indigo. It is alleged that when Complainant went to the officials of 9B counter of Indigo at about 6:30 a.m. for the status of his flight, the officials of Indigo informed him that the gate has been closed and boarding cannot be allowed. It is alleged that it was the twenty minute prior to the scheduled time of the flight. It is alleged that due to negligence of the officials of the Opposite Party by non announcement of the flight the Complainant could not took the flight and also left the return flight of dated 28.09.2019. It is alleged that due to deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party Complainant had faced the irreparable loss as the Complainant could not take consultation from the doctor for his son. It is alleged that Complainant contacted the officials of the Indigo for refunding the cost of tickets for deficiency in service on their part and unfair trade practice. It is alleged that Opposite Party refused to return the ticket amount.
2. Complainant has prayed for issue direction to pay Rs.21,056/-. He has also claimed Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental & financial harassment. He has also claimed Rs. 11,000/- as litigation charges.
3. Complainant has attached copy of tickets from Delhi to Hyderabad, copy of tickets from Hyderabad to Delhi, copy of boarding pass, copy of representation for claiming the ticket amount from Indigo, copy of refusal letter of Indigo dated 03.12.2018 and photographs.

Case of the Opposite Party

4. Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement, it is verified and affirmed by Mr. Rahul Kumar, Associate General Counsel, who has been duly authorized by virtue of Authority Letter and Board Resolution dated 30.08.18. It is stated by Opposite party that the Complainant was aware that the deadline to board the IndiGo Flight 6E-303 was 0625 hours as the scheduled time of departure for this flight was 0650 hours-the same was admittedly in his knowledge as is evidenced from the copy of boarding pass filed by the Complainant on page 21 of the annexure to the Complaint which clearly mentions that the boarding gate closes minutes prior to the schedule departure time of the flight. That the Complainant by his own admission has admitted reporting at the boarding gate 5 minutes after its closure. That the Complainant has not placed any documentary evidence on record to substantiate that fact that he reported at the boarding gate within the mandated boarding timelines. That the Complainant was offered re-accommodation on the next alternate flight on payment of the difference amount of fare and re-accommodation charges, however, the said offer was declined for reasons best known to them. That the Complainant was entitled to a refund of the Government and Airport Fees and/or Taxes-‘No show Taxes’ amounting to INR 495 and that this amount was refunded on 22.11.2018 to the account from which the payment had been made for the booking. However, as per the official records of InterGlobe Aviation Ltd, instead of reporting at the scheduled time for boarding i.e. by 0625 hours, the Complainant reported at the check-in counter for the IndiGo Glight No. 6E-303 only after its closure i.e. at 0630 hours. That the Complainant had admittedly reported 5 minutes after the closure of the boarding gate. That it is pertinent to mention that manual announcements were made at the boarding gate, for the missing passengers, including the Complainant and his accompanying passengers, calling them to report at the boarding gate immediately, however they did not report at the boarding gate within the boarding timelines in response.  That the Complainant and his accompanying passengers, due to their own negligence and default, failed to report at the boarding gate by 0625 hours and instead reached at 0630 hours. At this point, the Complainant and his accompanying passengers were treated as ‘No Show’ and as such, the entire booking amount of the Complainant was liable to be forfeited; It is submitted that completing the check-in formalities and reporting for boarding within the stipulated timeline is solely the passenger’s responsibility, which the Complainant failed to do for the IndiGo Flight. It is further submitted that the Complainant has not placed any documentary evidence on record to substantiate the fact that he reported at the boarding gate within the mandated boarding timelines. That InterGlobe Aviation Ltd cannot accept passengers after closure of the boarding gate, on account of operational circumstances and exigencies, such as amendment of load sheet, change in head count, adherence to on-time performance and least inconvenience to passengers who adhered to the boarding timelines etc. InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. without the admission of any liability and purely as a goodwill and service gesture, offered to re-accommodate them onto alternative flight on payment of difference fare amount and re-accommodation charges. However the Complainant declined this offer for reasons best known to him. Accordingly, a sum of INR 495/- in respect of the ‘No Show Taxes’ was duly refunded on 22.11.2018 in the account through which the booking had been made. It is pertinent to submit that it is not only the boarding pass which needs to be obtained by the passenger, there are certain conditions precedent which need to be fulfilled in order to be able to undertake the said journey including but not limited to boarding the aircraft within the mandated timelines. As per the clause ‘Failure to Comply’ of the IndiGo CoC, InterGlobe Aviation Ltd will not be liable to for any loss or expense incurred due to their failure to comply with the provisions of this article. Thus, completing the check-in and boarding formalities is the duty and responsibility of the passengers. The Complainant, on account of his own negligence and fault, failed to adhere to the mandated boarding timelines and thereby failed to report at the boarding gate within the stipulated timelines, InterGlobe Aviation Ltd was constrained to treat the Complainant as ‘Gate No Show’ for the IndiGo Flight. It is specifically denied that the Complainant had any appointment with a doctor for his son’s check up in Hyderabad, as alleged. It is submitted that manual announcements were duly made with regard to the boarding of the passengers 25 minutes before the scheduled time of departure. Not only this, calling out passengers for the ‘final call of boarding’ was also made by the staff of InterGlobe Aviation Ltd but no response was received in the form of the Complainant’s presence.  It is denied that the Complainant suffered a loss of INR 8031 for the ticket cost of the IndiGo Flight. It is submitted that the correct booking amount for the IndiGo Flight was INR 7224. The Complainant’s alleged return ticket fare needs no reply form InterGlobe Aviation Ltd as it was not booked with them but with another airline. In any case, any loss or hardship suffered by the Complainant and his accompanying passengers on account of the ‘No Show’ was purely on account of the Complainant’s own negligence and default in adhering to the boarding timelines.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party

6. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Rahul Kumar, working as Associate General Counsel at InterGlobe Aviation Limited having its corporate office at Level 1, Tower-C, Global Business Park, MG Road, Gurgaon, Haryana.

Arguments and Conclusion

7.  We have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that he booked an online air ticket from Delhi to Hyderabad for three passengers vide booking ID No. 5908825664 through flight of Indigo 6E-303, PNR No. MF 984G departure scheduled at 06:50 a.m. dated 27.09.2018 amounting to Rs. 8,031/-. He further stated that he reached at the Airport before the scheduled time and took the boarding passes and kept on waiting for announcement of flight. It is alleged that no announcement was made by the Indigo. It is alleged that when he went to the officials of 9B counter of Indigo at about 6:30 a.m. for the status of his flight, the officials of Indigo informed him that the gate has been closed and boarding cannot be allowed. It is alleged that due to negligence of the officials of the Opposite party by non announcement of the flight the Complainant could not took the flight. It is also alleged that Complainant contacted the officials of the Indigo for refunding the cost of tickets for deficiency in service on their part and unfair trade practice.
8. The case of the Opposite Party is that as per the officials records of InterGlobe Aviation Ltd instead of reporting at the scheduled time for boarding i.e. by 0625 hours, the Complainant reported at the check-in counter for the IndiGo Flight No. 6E-303 only after its closure i.e. at 0630 hours. That the Complainant had admittedly reported 5 minutes after the closure of the boarding gate. It is pertinent to mention that manual announcements were made at the boarding gate, for the missing passengers, including the Complainant and his accompanying passengers, calling them to report at the boarding gate immediately, however, they did not report at the boarding gate within the boarding timelines in response. The Complainant, on account of his own negligence and fault, failed to adhere to the mandated boarding timelines and thereby failed to report at the boarding gate within the stipulated timelines, InterGlobe Aviation Ltd was constrained to treat the Complainant as ‘Gate No Show’ for the IndiGo Flight.
9. It is not denied by the Opposite Party that Complainant reached the Airport on time and obtain boarding card and clear security and waiting at the boarding gate of the flight. It was the duty of the Opposite Party to make sure enough announcement be made for the waiting passenger for that they have not produce any evidence that they have contacted the Complainant. Opposite Party further states that Complainant was entitled to refund of the Government and Airport Fees and/or Taxes-‘No Show Taxes’ amounting to INR 495 and that this amount was refunded on 22.11.2018 to the account from which the payment had been made for the booking.
10. The Complainant and his accompanied passenger missed their flight in spite of sitting at the boarding gate before scheduled departure of the said flight. Opposite party also confirmed that Complainant had paid Rs. 7,224/- for booking 3 tickets for the said flight. Since Complainant and his Co-passenger missed their flight from Delhi to Hyderabad. They were at the liberty to cancel their return flight of Spice Jet SG-126 for which they have paid Rs. 9,813/- and they have not led any evidence of loss of Rs. 9,813/- on account of missing the flight from Delhi to Hyderabad.
11.  In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. It is ordered that Opposite Party shall pay the Complainant Rs. 6,729/- (Rs. 7,224 - Rs.495 which complainant has received form the opposite party of ‘No-Show’) along with the interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its recovery and Rs. 20,000/- on account of harassment and litigation charges along with along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.
12. Order announced on 29.08.2022.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President