DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Thursday the 25^th day of April 2024

CC.140/2020

Complainant

H. Pradeep,

54/472, Padakasseril,

Kariat Vayal, West Hill. P.O,

Kozhikode – 673005

(By Adv. Sri. Pradip Kimar, Sri. Jayarajan. P)

Opposite Party

Inter Globe aviation Limited (IndiGo),

Rep. by Karishma,

Customer Relations, Indigo,

Level 5 , Tower D,

Global Business Park,

MG Road, Gurgon,

Haryana - 122002

(By Adv. Sri. M. Sameer Babu)

ORDER

By Sri. V. BALAKSRISHNAN – MEMBER

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The complainant booked a flight ticket on 26/08/2019 in the flight No. 6E579 operated by the opposite party. The flight was scheduled in Varanasi - Mumbai - Kozhikode route on 02/09/2019 with the departure time 14.50 hours and check - in time 14.05 hours. The confirmed ticket with PNR No. JFGTFP was issued to 3 persons including the complainant, his father and cousin. All the passengers reported the checking counter at 14.15 hours with a delay of 10 minutes on 02/09/2019. The Express check-in counter No. 15 was open at that time and the official of the opposite party did not issue boarding pass to them saying that they were late by 10 minutes and could not be permitted to board the flight. At the same time they could see another person just in front of them was allowed boarding and issued pass to him. The father of the complainant is an old aged person of 85 years and had an appointment of a doctor at Kozhikode on the very next day. As they had no check in baggage and only hand baggage the airline staff of the opposite party could have easily handled the matter, but not responded. At the same time they could see the boarding of passengers in progress through the gates of the flight opened. They were denied permission to meet the higher officials of both airline and airport. The airline staff later informed that the next available flight to their destination, Kozhikode was only on the next day on 03/09/2019. Finally they were forced to book ticket again without any refund or reduction in air fare and spent about Rs. 19,242/-. No discount, relaxation or consideration was given in the air fare on account of the missed flight. Even though all the sad happenings were reported to the opposite party by e-mail, there was no favourable reply to redress the grievances. The act of the opposite party shows clear unfair trade practice for which they are bound to give compensation. The service provided to the complainant by the opposite party was deficient one and they suffered substantial mental agony, financial loss and hardship.

3. Hence the complainant has approached this Commission to pass an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 19,242/-, the amount paid towards ticket fare in second time and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the financial loss, mental agony and hardship suffered in addition to the cost of the proceedings.
4. The opposite party filed the version. Almost all the averments and allegations in the complaint are denied by them. It is submitted that the opposite party had acted in accordance with the binding terms of IndiGo conditions of carriage (IndiGo CoC) and duly discharged all its obligations in duty. They had submitted that as per the records maintained by them the complainant and the accompanying passengers reported the check in counter for the flight No. 6E-579 only at 14.26 hours. Also they cannot accept passengers after closure of the check-in counter. It is stated in the version that this commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. They represented that the complainant at time of executing the contract of the carriage in the form of IndiGo CoC agreed that the courts of New Delhi shall set in all disputes arising out of or in connection with the provisions of contract. Finally going through the version it is seen that there is total denial of each and every para of the complaint.
5. In the light of facts and circumstances stated the opposite party prays to dismiss the present complaint instituted against them.   
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

      1) Whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

       2) Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade and business practice on the part of the opposite party, as                 alleged?

                         3) Reliefs and costs.

7. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of the PW1 and Exts A1 to A7on the side of the complaint. On behalf of the opposite party Exts. B1 to B10 are marked.
8. The complainant was examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the Aadhaar of the father of the complainant, Ext A2 is the copy of the Air ticket for the day 02/09/2019, Ext A3 is the details of additional payment made for the journey on 03/09/2019, Ext A4 is the copy of the correspondence letters between complainant and opposite party, Ext A5 is the copy of the Election ID Card of the complainant, Ext A6 is the copies of the education qualification certificates and Ext A7 is the photo taken at the bank of Ganga River.  Ext B1 is the IndiGo ticket details on 03/09/2019, Ext B2 is the copy of the screen shot produced by the opposite party about the reporting time on 02/09/2019, Ext B3 is the true copy of IndiGo CoC, Ext B4 is the copy of the screen shot of details of re accommodation, Ext B5 is the screen shot of the Travel on board on 03/09/2019, Ext B6 is the copy of the e-mail sent by the complainant, Ext A7 is the copy of the reply e-mails of the opposite party, Ext B8 is the copy of the e-mails of correspondence between complainant and opposite party, Ext B9 is the screen shot evidencing the call made on 05/11/2019 and Ext B10 is the copy of the e-mails dated 12/12/2019 and 16/12/2019. 
9. Heard both sides. Both sides filed brief argument note also.
10. Point No 1  :  The opposite party has taken the contention that the Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the jurisdiction is limited to Delhi as per Ext B3.
11. The complainant had purchased the flight ticket of the Airline operated by the opposite party by paying consideration and he is a consumer of the opposite party as per section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act 2019. Also as per section 34 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, a complaint can be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the complainant resides or personally works for a gain. The complainant here in is residing in Kozhikode district within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The complainant is not a signatory to Ext B3. More over the opposite party cannot unilaterally confines the territorial jurisdiction to a particular place of their choice.
12. For the reason stated above, it is held that this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint is perfectly maintainable.
13. Point No 2: The main allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party in nutshell, are stated below; The complainant had booked the confirmed ticket in the flight operated by opposite party which was scheduled to depart on 02/09/2019 at 14.50 hours from Varanasi to Bombay. All the 3 passengers reported at the airport at Express counter of opposite party at 14.15 hours. At that time the counter was opened and the passenger in front of them were given boarding pass, but at the same time, they were denied the boarding pass stating that they were late by 10 minutes. At the same time, they could see the gates were opened and other passengers were permitted to board the flight.
14. According to the opposite party all the 3 passengers including the complainant reported at the check in counter only after the gate was closed. So they were not bound to issue the boarding pass to them.
15. When a passenger pays for a confirmed ticket the Airline becomes responsible for transportation of the customer. This is covered by statutes and international conventions.
16. It is an admitted fact that confirmed ticket was issued to the complainant and his co-passengers for the flight of opposite party which is to depart at 14.50 hours on 02/09/2019.
17. The specific case of the complainant is that the opposite party has no reason to declare for the complainant and co-passengers ‘counter no show’ as they had arrived 32 minutes prior to the departure time. They had no baggage check in and the express check in counter was opened at that time. According to him the opposite party had indulged in undue and unfair trade practices by selling their seats to other passengers resulting in shortage of seats on the said flight to Mumbai sector. The learned counsel of the complainant has pointed out that the opposite party collected the double fare for the same seats from other passengers whereas not refunding the fare collected from the complainant.  
18. It is an admitted fact that the flight mentioned was a domestic flight in which the passengers generally need security frisking and no immigration and customs check. More over the 3 passengers had only the carry - on baggage and not having check in luggage. The opposite party has not placed any documentary evidence to show that check in counters were closed at the time of their arrival. The counsel for the complainant submitted that while issuing tickets no rules and regulations were briefed to the complainant and no written documentation served on them, at the same time of booking. Also neither a copy of CoC was given to them nor they were asked to refer to web site for the same. The complainant also questioned the authenticity of Ext B2 stating that it is a fictitiously created piece of paper and in no way can be considered as an authenticated document.  
19. There is no definite documents produced by the opposite party to show that the confirmed seats offered to the complainant and co-passengers were kept vacant for the Varanasi, Mumbai sector flight 6E579 on 02/09/2019. In the absence of such a list of passengers, which could be produced by the opposite party easily, the argument of complaint that the opposite party sold their 3 confirmed seats to some other passengers holds good.
20. Going through the above documents it is an admitted fact that the complainant and his co-passengers were denied boarding pass whereas at the same time allotted their confirmed seat to other passengers. The action of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and they are bound to pay compensation. The complainant and his team were able to travel on the next day only. For the re booking additional amount of Rs. 19,242/- was collected as per Ext A3. So the opposite party is to be directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 19,242/- collected additionally for the booking of tickets of the scheduled flight on the next day.
21. The complainant claims that as the journey had to be postponed to next day they had to expend additional amount for accommodation at Varanasi, taxi fare from airport to Varanasi town and for additional food items. But there is no supporting documents produced by him such as hotel bill, restaurant bills and taxi bills etc. So the demand of Rs. 50,000/- cannot be accepted on this account.
22. The opposite party had shown their helplessness to perform as per the Passenger Charter, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India. The present situation faced by the complainant on 02/09/2019 was boarding denied due to over booking. As per the Passenger Charter Ministry of Civil Aviation Govt. of India the passengers must be compensated by the Airline as per the provisions, scenario 2 A-Boarding denied due to over-booking of the charter. The provisions specifically mention that the passenger should be compensated for an amount of 200% of booked one way basic fare plus Airline fuel charge, subject to maximum of Rs. 10,000/-, if airline arranges an alternate flight scheduled to depart within 24 hours of the booked scheduled departure. In the present case as the 3 passengers were able to travel in the next day only, they are eligible for a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each. 
23. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

1. CC.140/2020 is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay back to the complainant Rs.19,242/- (Rupees nineteen thousand, two hundred and forty two only) collected towards the additional fare of booking.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant as per the provisions of Passenger Charter Ministry of Civil Aviation.
4.  The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to complainant as cost of proceedings.

e) The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise, Rs. 19,242/-(Rupees nineteen thousand two hundred and forty two only) will bear an interest of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 25^th day of April, 2024.

Date of Filing: 21/07/2020

                                          Sd/-                                                          Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

                                  PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                             MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Copy of the Aadhaar of the father of the complainant.

Ext.A2 – Copy of the Air ticket for the day 02/09/2019.

Ext.A3 – Details of additional payment made for the journey on 03/09/2019.

Ext.A4 – Copy of the correspondence letters between complainant and opposite party. 

Ext.A5 – Copy of the Election ID Card of the complainant.

Ext.A6 – Copies of the education qualification certificates.

Ext.A7 – Photo taken at the bank of Ganga River.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Ext.B1 – IndiGo ticket details on 03/09/2019.

Ext.B2 – Copy of the screen shot produced by the opposite party about the reporting time on 02/09/2019.

Ext.B3 – True copy of IndiGo CoC.          

Ext.B4 – Copy of the screen shot of details of re accommodation.

Ext.B5 – Screen shot of the Travel on board on 03/09/2019.

Ext.B6 – Copy of the e-mail sent by the complainant.

Ext.B7 – Copy of the reply e-mails of the opposite party.

Ext.B8 – Copy of the e-mails of correspondence between complainant and opposite party.

Ext.B9 – Screen shot evidencing the call made on 05/11/2019.

Ext.B10 – copy of the e-mails dated 12/12/2019 and 16/12/2019. 

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -  H. Pradeep, (Complainant)

                                        Sd/-                                                                   Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

                                PRESIDENT                                                      MEMBER                                            MEMBER

True Copy,      

                                                                                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                       Assistant Registrar.