Delhi

East Delhi

CC/966/2013

HARSH VARDHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

INTER GLOBE AVIATION - Opp.Party(s)

25 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 966/2013

 

 

	Mr  Harsh Vardhan Sharma S/o Late Shri Kalu Ram Sharma R/o A-1/1, 1st Floor, Krishna Nagar Delhi 110051	….Complainant
Versus
1	M/s. Inter Globe Aviation Limited Through Managing Director Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapar House 124. Janpath New Delhi 110 001	……OP1
2	M/s Indigo Airlines Through President Level-1, Tower-C, Global Business Park Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 002	……OP2

 

                                                         

 

Date of Institution: 31.10.2013

Judgment Reserved on:25.02.2022

Judgment Passed on: 25.02.2022

                  

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Ravi Kumar, Member

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order I shall dispose off present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP1 & OP2 contending deficiency of service by OPs i.e. by not providing the services to the Complainant and his family member. Complainant in his complaint has stated that he had booked Three Economy Class Tickets with OP2 on its Flight no. 6E 288 from Chennai to Delhi through M/s Paras Tour & Travels, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi on 06.07.2013 in the name of his Wife, Mother and himself. His infant child was also accompanying them. On 07.07.2013 he reached Chennai Airport with his Wife and Mother and his infant child and obtained Boarding Pass from the Counter of OP2 at Airport. The staff of OP2 asked the Complainant and his family to board the Aircraft well in advance to the scheduled take off time and therefore Complainant alongwith his family members occupied the allotted seats at 04:40 p.m. However, upon entering the Aircraft the Complainant was shocked to notice that the air-conditioning system of the Aircraft was not working and it was humid inside. When he made oral complaint to Flight Crew of OP2, they assured that the air-conditioning system would start soon, however, despite several request air-conditioning system was not started by staff of OP2 deliberately which caused excessive humidity inside the Aircraft as the same was packed with passengers. Then Complainant requested staff of OP2 to provide him Complaint Register but the same was flatly refused and situation became worst as the scheduled take off time was changed from 5:20 p,m. to 5.40 p.m. and the Complainant and his Family had to bear great inconvenience. He further called Customer Care Helpline over phone and told them regarding the problem but to no avail and it is alleged that air-conditioning system was deliberately kept off by the staff of OP till take-off. After landing at Delhi the air-conditioning was again deliberately put off by the staff of OP2 and Complainant with his family had to again bear the torrid situation till they were allowed to alight from the Aircraft. Upon alighting from Aircraft at Delhi he made complaint to Ground Staff of OP2 and he was assured that appropriate inquiry will be done to address the grievance but no action was taken. On 12.09.2013 he got issued Legal Notice seeking refund of amount paid by him for tickets and to compensate him for deficiency in service but to no avail again. In his prayer Complainant has sought refund of amount Rs. 22130/- with interest thereon @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 06.07.2013 till realization, Rs.1,00,000/- on account of damages due to deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice adopted by OP and Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental harassment etc and cost of proceedings. Initially along with the Complaint, the Complainant filed his original Boarding Pass, copy of complaint dated 7.7.2013, copy of Legal Notice dated 12.9.2013 and other dispatch receipts. Later on he filed additional documents which were Original Boarding Pass of Smt. Shardha Sharma, Smt Saroj Sharma and Hardik Sharma who is infant son of Complainant. He also filed one original CD containing Audio and Video contents, Transcript of Audio recording dated 07.07.2013 and original Audio Video Analysis Report dated 18.03.2014 from SIFS India, 2443, Kingsway Camp, Delhi which is a Forensic Science Organisation.
2. OP1 in their reply dated 14.02.2014 stated that the complaint is not maintainable against OP2 as ‘IndiGo’ cannot be arrayed as Party as it is a merely trade name under which the Airline operates and the Company’s name is M/s InterGlobe Aviation Ltd.  They have stated that their reply is covering both i.e. OP1 & OP2. They have also stated that the terms envisaged under the ‘Conditions of Carriage’ contractually are binding and therefore, the Complaint is untenable. Prior to take off of the Aircraft, comfortable environment for the passengers sitting in the Aircraft was ensured by sufficient ventilation therein by way of overhead Fans and open doors of Aircraft, therefore, there was no question of excessive humidity in Aircraft other than what is ordinarily present under normal conditions. Further, except for the Complainant none of the passenger on the Aircraft complained about any uncomfortable condition or excessive humidity in the Aircraft Cabin either prior to take off or subsequent to landing. It is also contended by the OP that delay of about 20 minutes in taking off occurred on account of heavy traffic at Chennai Airport and not due to any deficient service on the part of OPs. Several rounds of water were served to passengers and regular announcements were made regarding the same. OP has stated that ‘Conditions of Carriage’ constitute a valid and binding contract and the Complainant was having adequate knowledge about the same. At any rate the Complainant cannot be permitted to go beyond the contract. OP has annexed copy of IndiGo’s ‘Conditions of Carriage’ as Annx. OP S/1 and have stated that Complainant is not entitled for any relief whatsoever.
3. Before proceeding further it is observed by this Commission that once OP1 has submitted reply on behalf of OP2 also then their contention that OP2 should not be a party in case is not correct.
4. Complainant filed Rejoinder dated 09.04.2014. Complainant has mainly rebutted the reply of OP by stating that OP1 is managing the affairs of OP2 and that he had booked tickets of flight of OP2 and therefore, the complaint is maintainable against both the OPs. At the time of purchasing the tickets OPs assured hassle free travel experience, however, they failed to keep up their assurance and were highly negligent in providing services to the Complainant and his family. The OP, despite being requested repeatedly failed to provide comfortable environment to the Complainant, his family and other fellow passengers which is evident through the Audio and Video recording placed on record. Complainant has contended that he and his family and other passenger were made to suffer at the expense of profit margins sought to be achieved by the OP by saving fuel used for running the air conditioning system inside the Aircraft. Complainant has stated that OP has claimed that due to ‘Conditions of Carriage’ , the Complainant is not entitled for any refund/compensation, however, this is not correct and the ‘Conditions of Carriage’ does not permit the OP to retract from their assurance and harass the consumer by providing deficient services to them. He has also contended and denied in  Rejoinder that prior to take off the overhead fans were operational and doors of the Aircraft were opened in order to ensure sufficient ventilation of the Aircraft. He also stated that despite of his making complaint from his mobile number 9868863432 to the Customer Care, his complaint was not lodged and finding no other way, he captured video recordings of the Aircraft cabin.  
5. Complainant alongwith his wife Smt. Shardha Sharma has filed their affidavit dated 19.05.2014 & 15.10.2014 respectively wherein they have reiterated the stand as taken in the Complaint. Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein following documents were filed and exhibited:  Original e-ticket WZ4WRG dated 06.07.2013 & Ticket Summary as Ex CW1/1 and Ex CW1/2, Original bill of Paras Tours & Travels dated 06.07.2013 as Ex CW 1/3, Original Boarding Passes as Ex CW1/4 to Ex. CW1/7, a CD at Ex. CW1/8 and its transcript version as Ex. CW1/9(colly), copy of  complaint  dated 07.07.2013 made to OP annexed as Ex. CW1/10, copy of Legal Notice dated 12.09.2013 as Ex CW1/11 (colly), original Courier Receipts as Ex CW1/12 (colly), the Tracking Report and proof of delivery of courier no. BD3056956 as Ex CW1/13 and Ex CW1/14, complaint dated 08.10.2013 to the then Hon’ble Civil Aviation Minister as Ex CW1/15(colly), Speed Post Receipts and tracking reports as Ex CW1/16  & Ex CW1/17 respectively.
6. There was no evidence by way of affidavit filed by OP1 in the case and they have produced only one document i.e. OP S/1 which is IndiGo “Conditions of Carriage’.
7. During the course of the proceedings before this Forum, the case was also referred for mediation and Mediation Centre submitted report on 05.09.2018 that the matter was non-starter for mediation and sent the matter back to this Forum for further proceedings.
8. The OP has filed Written Arguments on 02.02.2022.
9. This Commission has carefully perused the documents and written submissions on record filed by both sides, heard the Ld. Counsels of both the parties and keeping in view the fact that there is no denial by the OP about non-functioning of air-conditioning system during that period when the Complainant and his family were inside the Aircraft before taking off, the conclusion is as follows:

              The Complainant had booked three Economy Class Tickets from OP on its Flight no. 6E 288 from Chennai to Delhi on 06.07.2013 in his name and in the name of his mother & wife (Ex CW1/1 and Ex CW1/2). His infant child also accompanied them in this journey. They reached Chennai Airport in time and after obtaining Boarding Passes (Ex CW1/4 to Ex. CW1/7), they proceeded to board the Aircraft at 04:40 p.m. (Flight was scheduled to depart at 5.20 pm). They occupied the seats allotted to them along with infant child. However, upon entering the Aircraft they found that air-conditioning system was not working and there was humidity inside the Aircraft. He made several oral complaints Aircraft Cabin Staff about the same and he was assured that things will be fine but the air-conditioning system did not become operational. The Flight was scheduled to depart from Chennai at 05:20 p.m. which was rescheduled for 05:40 p.m. So for one hour approx. the Complainant along with his family members and infant child kept seated in their allotted seats with no air-conditioning inside the Aircraft as air-conditioning system was non-functional. It is worth to note that Aircraft was to depart from Chennai and climate of Chennai remains humid mostly being coastal area, however, the OP failed to provide air-conditioned environment during the stationary position of the Aircraft for nearly one hour with Passengers seated inside the Aircraft to its maximum capacity. The Complainant has also submitted one CD which contains Audio & Video contents and is supported by Report dated 18.03.2014 of CFIS, India (which is Forensic Science Organisation) which has confirmed that there is no tampering in the contents (CD being CW1/8 & its transcript version as Ex. CW1/9). This evidence was never disputed/countered by the OP.

The Commission has also gone through the CD’s contents by playing the same on computer system and found that in the Video enough evidence is available to observe that the Aircraft was full of passengers and many passengers were disturbed in the Aircraft due to non-functioning of the air-conditioning system inside it during stationary position of the Aircraft at Chennai Airport and can be seen trying to get some air from overhead Fans in the Aircraft. The Complainant was traveling with his Mother- a senior citizen, Wife & an infant child and disturbance due to non-availability of proper atmosphere in the Aircraft is clearly visible which was further added by delayed departure of the Aircraft by 20 minutes from its scheduled time. Though OP may not be held responsible for delay of 20 minutes in take off, as it may be due to traffic congestion at Chennai Airport but they were supposed to provide comfortable environment for the passengers sitting in the Aircraft till the time of take off which they failed to do which amounts to deficiency in service.  The Audio part in the CD was also played by the Commission on the computer system and it clearly establishes that the complaint of the Complainant was not registered by the Customer Care when he called them from his mobile. Cabin Staff in the Aircraft also did nothing to solve the problem by raising the issue with their higher Officials nor any Complaint Register was provided to the Complainant on his request.

The contention of OP that during the stationary position of the Aircraft proper comfortable environment for the passengers sitting in the Aircraft was ensured by sufficient ventilation therein by way of overhead Fans and the open Doors of the Aircraft and there is no question of excessive humidity in the Aircraft other than what is ordinarily present under normal conditions is untenable. Further, the contention of the OP that the environment inside the Aircraft was normal and no other passenger felt humid inside is also not well founded as the Video Recording inside the Aircraft at the particular time captured by the Complainant, which has not been disputed by OP, clearly reveals that other passengers as well as the Complainant and his family were not comfortable and they were trying to reach on the overhead fans for some relief and Family of the Complainant was using hand fans for getting some air. Hence, this contention of the OP is untenable.

OP is right to the extend that Complainant is bound by ‘Conditions of carriage’ (OP S/1) with regard to cancellation of Ticket and Refund however the ‘Conditions of carriage’ nowhere mentions that the Air-Conditioning system inside the aircraft need not be operational till the time Aircraft takes off.

The OP’s contention that there is no deficiency in service is untenable as the evidence on record available clearly demonstrates that the Complainant boarded the Aircraft at Chennai at 04:20 p.m. and finally the Aircraft took-off at 05:40 p.m. and there was no air-conditioning system working during this period despite of the Complainant’s request to the Cabin Staff of OP in the Aircraft to start the air-conditioning system. In their written arguments in para 13, the OP has stated that `It is important to note that while an Aircraft is parked and the engine is turned off, the air conditioning unit and other peripherals are powered by an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) which has a limited power capacity…….There were some technical difficulties beyond the control of Inter-Globe Aviation Limited due to which the air-conditioning unit could not function at its best ..’ This itself is an admission on the part of OP coupled with evidence on record by way of CD that they failed to provide comfortable environment to the passengers prior to take off at Chennai and their contention that comfortable environment was provided to the passengers by way of overhead fans and opened doors of the Aircraft is not tenable. Therefore, OP failed to provide comfortable environment in the Aircraft to Complainant and his family with infant child at Chennai between 4.40 pm to 5.40 pm on 06.07.2013 while Aircraft was stationary which amounts to deficiency in service.

Under `Conditions of Carriage’ (Annexure OP S/1) filed by OP, there is no condition of refund when tickets are utilized for journey and since the Complainant alongwith his family members did not cancel their tickets and undertook the journey from Chennai to Delhi and utilized the tickets, therefore, the claim of the Complainant for refund of ticket amount is untenable.

The contention of the Complainant with regard to the 2^nd half of the journey is not convincing that when they arrived at the destination i.e. Delhi, the air-conditioning system was again put off and his family got tormented again on account of the same because when the Aircraft comes down from higher altitude for landing then impact of low and cool temperature due to use of air-condition system and outside temperature still remains within it for some time. Normally at Delhi Airport, Aircraft takes some time to reach the spot allotted to it at the Airport for passengers to get down and no evidence has been placed on record by the Complainant that air-conditioner system was put off by the OP as it was done by him by way of video recording while he departed from Chennai.

Keeping in view the above, this Commission is of the view that there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs as specified above and the Commission holding the OPs responsible of deficiency in service direct the OPs as under:-

1. To pay to the Complainant the amount of Rs.40,000/- towards deficiency in service towards him and his family members.
2. To pay the Complainant a consolidated amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of pain and mental agony suffered by him and his family members.

10. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of order.
11. Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.
12. Announced on the day 25^th of February 2022.
13. File be consigned to Record Room.

DELHI

 

 

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(Ritu Garodia) Member

(S.S. Malhotra)            President