DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 4th day of August, 2023

Present  : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

              : Smt. Vidya.A, Member

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member               Date of filing: 14/2/2022 

CC/31/2022

Vrinda Devi

    W/o Vijayakumar,

    DevakiSadanam,

    Thottakara (PO)

    Ottapalam,

Palakkad - 679102

(By Adv.M/s.M.P.Ravi, M.J.Vince)                                 -            Complainant                                           

                                                           V/s

1. Inter Globe Aviation Limited,

    Rep. by its manager,

    Upper Ground Floor Thapar House,

    Gate No.2 Western Wing,

    124 Janpath,

    New Delhi – 110 001.                                  

    (By Adv.C.G.Hari)

2. Directorate General of Civil Aviation (D.G.C.A)

    Arbindo Marg, Near Safadganj Airport,                       -         Opposite parties

    New Delhi – 110003.

O R D E R

Prepared by Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief

      The Complainant had booked two flight tickets for herself and her                        co-traveler for travelling from Thiruvananthapuram to Delhi on 8/9/2021. She paid an amount of Rs.21,828/- as ticket fare. The flight was scheduled on 8^th September 2021 at 7.15 hrs. The tickets were booked in the name of the complainant using her account. On 7/9/2021, the complainant started her journey from Ottapalam to Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant received a message from the opposite parties office that the flight is cancelled and the complainant has either to opt for refund or to travel any other day. The complainant availed the option for refund of the fare because she had already booked to travel from Delhi to Kashmir on 8/9/2021. The complainant booked her ticket in Air India on 7/9/2021 night; otherwise she would not get the connection flight from Delhi. Because of the sudden cancellation of the ticket by the 1^st opposite party, the complainant and her co-traveller had to afford extra expenses. An additional amount of Rs.23,000/- was incurred by the complainant which the 1^st opposite party is liable to return along with refund of ticket fare.

                    Eventhough the complainant opted for refund of the ticket amount, the 1^st opposite party did not refund the amount or state any valid reason for non-refund. The acts of the 1^st opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental stress and financial loss to the complainant. 2^nd opposite party who is the controlling authority failed to look in to the deficiency in service done by the 1^st opposite party.

                   So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.44,048/- as compensation to the complainant and to pay the entire cost of the proceedings.

2.  Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. Both opposite parties appeared and filed their version.

3.  The 1^st OP filed version contending that the present complaint does not disclose any grant of authority to the present complainant, to institute complaint on behalf of the accompanying passenger namely Mrs. Raji.K.Damodaran. The complainant has failed to implead the accompanying passenger. The complainant has no locus standi to make averments on behalf of the accompanying passenger booked under PNR:DIGT9P as the complaint has been filed only in the name of one person. The complaint is to be dismissed on this ground in limine.

          The 1^st opposite party states that, the complainant booked air tickets for herself and one other passenger for travel on 8^th September 2021 from Thiruvananthapuram to Delhi on board Indigo Flight No. 6E-2392. The booking was made by the complainant through the official website of Interglobe Aviation Ltd. on payment of INR 18,496/- and the PNR assigned for this booking was DIGT 9P. A valid travel itinerary was sent to the registered e-mail address of the complainant on 7^th September, 2021. Interglobe Aviation Ltd was constrained to cancel the operation of Indi Go Flight on account of sudden and unforeseen reason, entirely beyond their control and it was duly informed to the complainant by way of SMS sent to her registered contact number ie 919495724627. It was further informed that the complainant and the accompanying passenger have been rebooked on board Indi Go flight NO.6E-717/6E-168 for travel from Trivandrum to Delhi via Mumbai. The complainant was informed about this on 7^th September via e-mail and SMS to her registered number. In addition to rebooking, complainant was also provided with an option to choose an alternate flight at no additional cost or to cancel the booking with a full refund. Rebooked Indigo flight was scheduled to depart from Trivandrum at 7.25 hrs ie merely 10 minutes after the scheduled departure time of the original Indigo Flight. The 1^st opposite party did not receive any cancellation request from the complainant before the scheduled departure time of the Rebooked Indigo Flights. The complainant was fully aware of the scheduled departure time of the re-booked flight and her obligation to complete the check in-formalities within the mandated timeliness; but the complainant failed to report to the check-in-counter within the stipulated time and the 1^st opposite party, was constrained to declare the complainant as ‘Counter No show’ as per the binding terms of conditions.

                   In accordance with their Terms of Conditions, the 1^st opposite party is entitled to forfeit the entire booking amount for the ‘No show’ taxes ie govt. taxes/statutory fees etc. The 1^st OP had refunded Rs.3332/- to the account of the complainant and she has admitted the receipt of this refunded amount. Further, as a onetime good will service gesture, the 1^st OP offered the complainant a travel voucher worth 100% of the booking amount minus the No-show Taxes already refunded, but the complainant has not responded to this e-mail. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the complaint has to dismissed.

4.  The 2^nd OP filed version contending that DGCA is attached to office of Ministry of Civil Aviation and has no role in such matters. DGCA is primarily a safety Regulator and the subject dispute is between 2 private parties. ie complainant and airline.  Thus it is a private dispute arising out of contractual obligations and OP2 has not role and to delete them from party array. They contended that with a view to protect consumer interests in case of cancellation, delays of flight by the airlines and denied boarding by Airlines DGCA has issued Civil Aviation requirements. As per the provision of para 3.3 in above CAR, airline has to provide compensation. If the complainant is not satisfied with the resolution of grievance by airline, he has liberty to complain to any statutory body set up under relevant applicable laws.

5.  From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration.

1. Whether OP2 is a necessary party to the complaint ?
2. Whether the complainant has any authority to file complaint on behalf of her co-passenger ?
3. Whether the re-booking of Indigo Flight No. GE717/6E 168 by the  1^st opposite party for the complainant and co-passenger on the same day from Trivandrum to Delhi was duly communicated to the complainant ?
4. Whether the complainant has cancelled the re-booking offered by opposite party and opted for cancellation of booking with full refund ?
5. If yes, whether the option chosen by the complainant was duly intimated to the 1^st opposite party ?
6. Whether the opposite parties are entitled to forfeit the entire booking amount as per the terms of conditions of air travels ?
7. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st opposite party in non-refunding the amount ?
8. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
9. Reliefs, if any as cost of compensation ?

6.    Complainant filed proof affidavit Exts. A1 & A2 marked from the side of the complainant. Since opposite party failed to file proof affidavit, opposite party’s evidence was closed. Later on opposite party filed proof affidavit and an application to re-open evidence and it was allowed on cost. But the opposite party failed to pay the cost and evidence was closed. Complainant filed notes of argument.

    Point No.1        

7.  Complainant’s contention is that 2^nd opposite party who is the controlling authority failed to look into the deficiency in service done by the 1^st opposite party and their act amounts to deficiency in service/unfair trade practice. 2^nd opposite party filed version stating that DGCA being the safety regulator has no role to play in settling private disputes arising out of contractual obligations between private parties and to delete them party array. DGCA being a statutory authority has no role in the subject matter of the complaint and they are not a necessary party. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

Point No.2

8.  Complainant’s case is that complainant booked 2 tickets with the 1^st opposite party, one for herself and another for co-passenger. Opposite party in their version has raised a contention that the complainant has no authority to institute complaint on behalf of the accompanying passenger and the complainant has failed to implead the co-passenger in the party array.

            Both tickets were booked by the complainant in her name using her account and the same PNR No.DIGT 9P is given for the tickets. So the complainant is entitled to raise the claim on behalf of her co-passenger also.

      Point No.3 to 5

9.  Complainant’s grievance is that she booked 2 Air Tickets with the 1^st opposite party for travelling from Thiruvananthapuram to Delhi. The flight was scheduled on 8^th September 2021 at 7.15 hrs. The complainant started her journey from Ottapalam to Trivandrum on 7/9/2021 by train at 10.am. The complainant received a message from the 1^st opposite party’s office that the flight is cancelled and the complainant has either to opt for refund or to travel any other day. The complainant opted for refund of the fare because she had already booked to travel from Delhi to Kashmir on 8/9/2021. The complainant was constrained to opt Air India Flight on 7/9/2021 night itself from Thiruvananthapuram.

10.    As per the message received from the 1^st opposite party, the complainant had opted plan B for getting refund of the ticket fare. Accordingly a window opened in the page and option also marked clearly. The complainant had produced 2 printouts, one showing the booking of the tickets and another one is Fare summary which shows the

 Total amount paid as 21828 INR

 Cancellation charge as  0 INR

 Total Refund        -      21828 INR

       with a note that “ Amount will be processed in the original payment method in 7 working days.”

11.    1^st opposite party’s contention is that complainant was duly informed about the cancellation of the original Indigo Flight through e-mail and SMS and was further informed that the complainant and accompanying passenger have been rebooked on board Indigo Flight No. GE 717/6E 168 for travel from Trivandrum to Delhi via Mumbai. The complainant was also provided with an option to choose an alternate flight at no additional cost or to cancel the booking with a full refund of the entire booking amount. The opposite party produced the printout of the message. The 1^st opposite party has not received any cancellation request from the complainant regarding the cancellation of the re-booked Indigo Flight.  The complainant’s booking for travel on board the rebooked Indigo Flight was active and the complainant was obligated to comply with the mandatory check-in formalities. The true copy of the screenshot of the SMS official records of 1^st opposite party sent to the complainant is produced by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party produced the print out of the e-mail sent to the complainant in this regard. But this document are not marked in evidence.  Since the complainant has opted for refund, there arise no question of Re-booking in another flight. Further opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove their contention, even after granting adequate time.

12.    Point No.6

       The complainant’s contention is that as the flight was cancelled, she availed the option to refund the fare because she had already booked to travel from Delhi to Kashmir on 8/9/2021 and was constrained to opt for Air India flight on 7/9/21 night itself. 1^st OP’s contention is that the complainant failed to choose either option provided to her. That being, the complainant along with her fellow passenger was booked to travel on board Indigo Flight No. 6E 717/6E-168 from Trivandrum to Delhi via Mumbai and duly informed about this to the complainant via SMS and E-mail. The complainant was also informed about the pre-requisites to be followed.  The complainant failed to report to the check-in counter within the stipulated time and the opposite party was forced to declare complainant as counter No show and paid the No show taxes amounting to Rs.3332/-.

             From the Reservation summary produced by the opposite party and from their pleadings, it is seen that the departure time of the Re-scheduled flight from Trivandrum is 7.25 hrs.

            The scheduled time of the re-booked flight is Trivandrum-Bombay-               7.25 – 9.35 BOM-DEL 11-13.20 hrs. So the time of arrival of the re-booked flight is 13.20 hrs. From the copy of the ticket produced by the complainant, time as per the actual flight is 7.15 –10.35. So the arrival time at Delhi Airport is 10.35. There is almost 3 hrs time difference between the actual flight and re-booked flight. As per the complainant, she received a message from the opposite parties office to either to opt for refund or to travel any other day and she opted plan B which is the route for getting refund. Accordingly a window opened in the page and option also marked clearly. She produced that print out.

          When the complainant had opted for refund of the amount, the alternate option automatically goes. So the complainant had not accepted the opposite parties request for re-booking as she had to get connection flight from Delhi.

13.    From the available evidence, the complainant has made out a case that the opposite parties accepted her refund request; but failed to refund the full amount. The 1^st opposite party contended in this regard that since the complainant failed to cancel the re-booking and report 60 minutes prior to scheduled departure time the complete ticket amount is forfeited. As per their policy, an amount of Rs.3332/- towards applicable taxes is refunded to the complainant.

           The 1^st opposite party failed to adduce any evidence in support of their claim. Further as the cancellation was due to reason attributable to the opposite party, forfeiture of any amount by the opposite party, if at all the pleading is correct is illegal and an Unfair Trade Practice.  They are not entitled to forfeit the ticket amount and has to refund the balance amount. 

14.    Points 7 to 9

      In view of the above findings, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not refunding the full amount.

          2^nd opposite party not being a necessary party are exclude from liability.

      In the result, the complaint is allowed.

1. We direct the 1^st opposite party to refund Rs.18,548/- being the balance ticket amount with 10% interest from 8/9/21 till realization.
2. We direct the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service and Rs.20,000/- as cost of the litigation.

     The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.250/- as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 4th day August, 2023.

                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                      Vinay Menon V

      President

           Sd/-

        Vidya.A

                                                                                              Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1  : Reply to Legal Notice dated 12.10.2021.

Ext. A2  : Lawyer notice to The General Manager, Indigo Airlines, 

                dated12.10.2021.

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties:

Witness examined from the complainant’s side   : Nil

Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil

Cost: 20,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.