Hon'ble Mr. Sudip Niyogi, President
This case arises out of a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant. The complaint case in a nut shell is that the Complainant alongwith 05 other members of his family including his aged ailing mother had been to New Delhi in March, 2018 for some family exigencies and medical purpose. On 09.01.18, the Complainant booked his return tickets on line for journey by IndiGo Airlines flight No. 6E 5263, being PNR No.A6YV7L and XDJBGZon 13.03.18 from New Delhi to Bagdogra Airport at a total price of Rs.17,652/-. The flight was scheduled to depart at 14.05 hrs. from New Delhi on 13.03.18. On the scheduled date i.e. on 13.03.18, the Complainant made Web Checking for the IndiGo flight well in advance and also got the boarding passes through e-mail. Accordingly, he also informed his Driver to arrive at the Bagdogra Airport to take them to Cooch Behar.
It is contended that at the Airport, the mother of the Complainant Mrs. Archana Guha Roy, who is a Septuagenarian lady, suddenly felt severe pain on her leg. The Complainant approached the concerned authority for providing a wheel chair in due time but unfortunately, the wheel chair could not be provided on repeated requests and finding no other alternative, and as the time of boarding was running out, the Complainant alongwith other passengers had been to the queue to avail the flight but, they were denied access on the pretext that boarding time was over. At this, the Complainant missed the said flight and sustained heavy pecuniary loss. So, he lodged a complaint in the Help Line and against such complaint, a sum of Rs.990/- was remitted to his Bank Account. Now, the Complainant has claimed that they could not avail the said flight without any latches on their part. It was due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops that they sustained monetary loss and also suffered mental trauma and harassment. So, the Complainant prayed for an award in the form of refund of value of the tickets Rs.17,652/-, Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses of Car and Driver, who had been present at Bagdogra Airport to take them up to the residence, Rs. 2 lakh for mental pain and agony and Rs.70,000/- for cost of fresh tickets, hotel cost etc., Rs. 50,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP contested the case by filing a written version, evidence on affidavit and written argument. They denied all the allegations made against them. However, according to OP, any request for assistance of wheel chair and other assistances, IndiGo authority is required to be informed before 48 hours before the scheduled time of departure of the flight but as the Complainant requested for such assistance within a very short time, said arrangement could not be made. That apart, the Complainant reported to the Boarding Gate on that day at about 13.50 hours, i.e. just only 15 minutes before the scheduled time of departure of the flight and at that time, the Boarding Gate was already closed. So, the IndiGo authority was compelled to treat the Complainant and his accompanying passengers as “Gate No Show” and was constrained to deny boarding to the Complainant. However, Indi Go authority, in compliance with the IndiGo CoC, refunded the applicable taxes amounting to Rs.660/- and Rs.330/- for the 2 PNRs of the Complainant and the Complainant was also offered as a goodwill gesture travel voucher etc. which were not accepted by the Complainant. According to the Ops, there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. So, they prayed for dismissal of the instant case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the instant case is maintainable?
- Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops?
3.Is the Complainant is entitled to get any relief?
4.To what other relief, if any, Complainant is entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
We have gone through the contentions of the parties and other materials on record. The Complainant is a resident of Cooch Behar and the amount claimed as compensation is found to be within the pecuniary limit of this Forum. This apart, Complainant made some allegations against Ops that they allegedly denied boarding to the flight, in question, despite having no reason on their part. Therefore, considering all these, the instant case is found to be maintainable. So, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.2.
During argument, on behalf of the Complainant, it was submitted that on the relevant date i.e. on 13.03.18, Complainant and other members of his family had been to New Delhi Airport well in advance and procured Boarding Passes and subsequently, the mother of the Complainant who is a Septuagenarian lady felt severe pain on her leg and the Complainant approached the authority for providing a wheel chair for her, which was duly assured by the staff of the OP. He was also told not to be worried for the wheel chair, but unfortunately, even after long waiting, no such wheel chair could be provided and ultimately, when they went to the Boarding Gate, they were denied boarding on the pretext that boarding time was over. All requests of the Complainant in this regard went in vain. As a result, the Complainant and his party could not take the flight and he had to stay in a hotel and procure fresh tickets. This way, the Complainant and his family members were harassed and sustained huge monetary loss. The aforesaid act on the part of the OP amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. So, the Complainant is entitled to relief (s) as prayed for.
On the other hand, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP denied all the allegations made by the Complainant. According to them, request for a wheel chair is required to be made 48 hours before the scheduled time of departure of the flight. According to OP, Delhi Airport is the busiest Airport in India and it may not be possible to procure wheel chair at a short notice and naturally concerned authority failed to procure a wheel chair for the mother of the Complainant and this does not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the Complainant.
From the contentions of the parties, it is found clear that admittedly, the Complainant had tickets for the said IndiGo flight on 13.03.18 from New Delhi to Bagdogra for himself and his five other family members. Admittedly also, the Complainant had Web Checking and got Boarding Passes through e-mail. It is also admitted that the Complainant had requested for a wheel chair for her mother, who is claimed to have a sudden pain on her leg but the wheel chair could not be arranged in a short notice.
Now, the question is when the Complainant came to the Airport and stood in the queue for boarding? The Complainant claimed to have stood in the queue alongwith other family members for boarding at the Boarding Gate and finally they were not allowed to board the flight as they were late and the Boarding Gate was closed as the boarding time was over.
As per IndiGo Contention of Carriage (IndiGo CoC), the Boarding Gate is closed 25 minutes prior to the departure time of the flight. The entire operation of flight by Airline Companies and necessary arrangement relating to that are regulated in accordance with the frame work provided by concerned authorities and individual Airline authority cannot deviate from that.
According to Op, Complainant and his family members arrived at the Boarding Gate at 13.50 hours i.e. 1.50 PM on the scheduled date, whereas the time of departure of the said flight was 14.05 hours i.e. 2.05 PM. So, the Complainant and his family members arrived at the Boarding Gate barely 15 minutes prior to the scheduled time of departure of the said flight. For such delay, they were not allowed to board the flight.
In this context, it is curious to note that nowhere the Complainant stated about the time when they had arrived at the Airport and at the Boarding Gate. The Complainant also did not deny the OP’s claim of time of 13.50 hours as their time of reporting to the Boarding Gate.
Now, coming to the aspect of request for a wheel chair by the Complainant, according to the Complainant, such a request for a wheel chair was made at the Airport when his mother felt pain on her leg. According to the Ops, such a request for a wheel chair has to be made 48 hours before the scheduled time of departure of the flight in order to enable the authority to make necessary arrangement. However, in this case, admittedly no such prior request was made by the Complainant.
It is found that the Complainant in his petition of complaint (paragraph-2) claimed that his mother is a Septuagenarian and ailing and they went to Delhi for some family exigencies and medical purpose. Therefore, it is not understood why he did not inform the authority about the need of a wheel chair while booking the tickets on line taking into consideration of the condition of his old aged ailing mother.
As there was no prior intimation or request for wheel chair by the Complainant either at the time of booking of tickets or atleast 48 hours before the scheduled time of departure of the flight as is provided in the guidelines, the Complainant cannot claim the wheel chair as of right in such a short notice, particularly in an Airport like the one in New Delhi, which is the busiest Airport in the country. He should know that providing a wheel chair may or may not be possible in such a short notice. At the same time, he definitely knew about the consequences they would have to face if missed the flight.
In such a situation, when within a reasonable time, the wheel chair could not be made available, a man of reasonable prudence is expected to rush to the Boarding Gate without waiting any longer atleast before the boarding time is over, so that the flight is not missed by them. Besides the mother of the Complainant, there were 5 other members in the team, who could have easily rendered assistance to the ailing mother in the party in boarding the aircraft, but here, apparently, no such idea could be conceived of by the Complainant and his other members or they might have seized that idea later when missed the opportunity was gone. We are compelled to hold that the Complainant failed to exercise his common sense, reasonable prudence and wisdom in that particular situation and acted in a negligent manner resulted in missing of the flight. In the facts and circumstance of the case, IndiGo staff and/ or the authority i.e. OP cannot at all be held liable for the missing of the flight by the Complainant and his party.
The Complainant claimed in paragraph 4 that they were standing in the queue for boarding the flight but unfortunately without assigning any reason, the IndiGo staff denied them access on the pretext of boarding time was over. Now, a question arises whether the Complainant and his party were in the queue of the passengers for boarding in the said particular flight or they were in a queue meant for boarding some other flight.
Usually, a particular Boarding Gate remains open for a particular time for a particular flight. It cannot be so that a person would be denied access to a particular flight through the Boarding Gate during boarding hours while the other passengers in the queue for the same flight are allowed. So, definitely the Complainant and his party arrived at the boarding gate after the boarding time was over and the boarding gate was closed for the particular flight. and for such denial of access by the IndiGo staff at the boarding gate, the concerned staff cannot be said at fault and blamed.
The OP also cannot be blamed and held liable to pay compensation for not being able to provide a wheel chair to the Complainant for his mother at such a short notice. So, there is no question of any deficiency in service and or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP as alleged by the Complainant. Thus, this point is not decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.3 and 4.
In view of our findings on Point No.2, no order for compensation as prayed for can be made in favour of the Complainant. So, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.
All the points are accordingly decided.
Hence,
It is ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action, if any. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the official Website: confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
