Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/107/2021

Shri C. Brahmarajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

InterGlobe Aviation Limited IndiGo, Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director and 3others - Opp.Party(s)

Shri. C.Brahmarajan

09 Mar 2023

ORDER

                                     Date of Complaint Filed : 05.03.2021

                                     Date of Reservation      : 22.02.2023

                                     Date of Order               : 09.03.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                : PRESIDENT

                     THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,              :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,        : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.107 /2021

THURSDAY, THE 9^th DAY OF MARCH 2023

Shri C. Brahmarajan,

S/o. Late K. Chellathurai,

Having permanent Address at:

M12/6, Navabharat Colony,

Kaveri Street,

Besant Nagar,

Chennai-600 090.                                                                                                                         ... Complainant                

..Vs..

 

1.InterGlobe Aviation Limited ("IndiGo"),

   Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director,

   Central Wing, Ground Floor,

   Thapar House, 124 Janpath,

   New Delhi-110001.

 

2.Ms. Anjali Nair,

   Customer Relations,

   InterGlobe Aviation Limited ("IndiGo”),

   Level 5, Tower D, Global Business Park,

   MG Road, Gurgaon,

   Haryana-122002.

 

3.The Manager,

   Customer Care & Relations,

   InterGlobe Aviation Limited ("IndiGo”),

   Madurai International Airport,

   Madurai-625022.

 

4.Shri Navaneethakrishnan,

   Staff,Customer Care & Relations,

   InterGlobe Aviation Limited ("IndiGo),

  Madurai International Airport,

  Madurai-625022.                                                                                                                                     ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. C. Subash

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. S. Ramasubramaniam &

                                                          Associates

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to adjudicate the complaint to ascertain deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and to determine and order for compensation of Rs.59,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of order till the date of payment from Opposite Parties  for the financial loss and mental agony suffered by the Complainant and to determine and order for necessary expenses incurred in connection with prosecution of this complaint for a sum of Rs.10,000/-.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant submitted that he was availing the services of 1^stOpposite Party Airlines for his travel between Madurai and Chennai, as he was undergoing medical treatment from a Doctor/hospital at Chennai, hence he had to occasionally travel between Madurai and Chennai for medical check-up. He had used an online ticket from the 1^st Opposite Party at its official website at www.goindigo.in for travel from Madurai to Chennai on 6th August 2020 in flight No.6E-7194 with PNRIM1W3A scheduled at 3.30pm from Madurai airport. As per the advice of the airlines he had made web check in got his boarding pass issued more than 48 hours prior to the departure of the flight. He had also obtained TN e-pass to comply with the instructions of Government of Tamil Nadu due to Covid-19 pandemic existing to undertake the travel from Madurai to Chennai. On 6^th August 2020, due to the then existing Covid-19 pandemic lockdown restrictions in Madurai, with great difficulty, he had availed the services of a reluctantly agreed auto rickshaw to commute from Madurai city to Madurai international airport, as no other public transport services were available and reached Madurai airport at 2.45 p.m,i.e., 45 minutes before the time of departure of the flight. He approached 4^th Opposite Party in good faith with the bona-fide expectation that the said customer care staff would be courteous and assist him to board the flight which was to depart only after 45 minute. The guidance of boarding the flight sought was not done and the 4^th Opposite Party as if he was consulting the 3^rd Opposite Party, sat in his cabin for more than 15 minutes and thereafter had expressed his inability when the available time was only 30 minutes for departure of the flight. In spite of informing about his status to the 4^th Opposite Party and requested to meet the 3^rd Opposite Party in order to allow him to board the flight, it was denied and replied that his status would not befit to meet the 4^th Opposite Party. Though he had politely and fervently pleaded with the 4^th Opposite Party that he had already taken boarding pass and TN e-pass and he will be suffering severe financial loss if he was not allowed to board the flight, the 4^th Opposite Party had not reacted to his request as fell in deaf ears and had never shown any human approach in the whole episode. But they had acted very rude and arrogant and their ego was preventing them from helping innocence like him. The 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Party being designated as customer care staff by 1^st Opposite Party with the honest intention to help and assist its valued customers, their behavior showed scant reflection to their designation and they were hostile to their responsibility and designation. At the end, he was not allowed to board the flight which compelled him to take an auto rickshaw back to the hotel for staying in Madurai, by which he had lost the ticket booking amount of Rs.6968/-. The 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties had acted as if they were the sales agents of 1^st Opposite Party and advised him to come to the airport on 7^thAugust and on payment of some extra money, they will verify the availability of ticket in the airlines and if available would allow him to board the flight. Since their advice doesn't seem to be genuine and was filled with lots of mala-fides and uncertainty, he had purchased a ticket for Rs.6,150/- from Spice Jet airlines on 7^thAugust 2020 and reached Chennai on 7th August 2020. Due to the illegal and mala-fide behavior of the 3^rdand 4^th Opposite Parties, he had to unnecessarily suffer additional expenses of around Rs.1,500/- for auto rickshaw charges for three trips from Madurai city to airport and back and also had to spend Rs.1,100/- for an additional day's stay at the hotel in Madurai. The Opposite Party have no regard to the welfare of their valued customers and their arrogance and mala-fide behaviour to assist him being a gazetted Officer in the Government of Tamil Nadu caused him severe mental agony and financial loss when the whole world was suffering from the Covid-19 Pandemic. He has taken the said behaviour of the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties a complaint through email was sent to the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties requesting them to look in to the matter immediately and take necessary disciplinary action against 4^th Opposite Party for being rude and misguiding the Complainant and also order for a compensation of Rs.6968/- towards ticket charges, Rs.10.000/- towards hotel stay and auto rickshaw charges and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment meted-out to him. The 1^st Opposite Party instead of enquiring into the matter to ascertain the truth had replied through the 2^nd Opposite Party vide email dated 12 August 2020 and declined compensation to the count and made a meager refund of Rs.268/- on 01.10.2020. The action of the Opposite Parties clearly demonstrates their deficiency of service and he is entitled for damages for the injuries suffered. He is a consumer of the 1^st Opposite Party in terms of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Opposite Parties as service provider have been deficient in their services as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. As such, the complaint is maintainable under Section 35 read with Section 36 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties are as follows:-

The present Written Version is being filed for and on behalf of the Opposite Parties, though wrongly impleaded 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties collectively known as InterGlobe Aviation Limited. The present complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. Further the Complainant had filed against wrong entities in as much they undertake domestic airline as well as to certain international destinations. The complaint filed against their staffs is defective and liable to be dismissed and further as Contract of Carriage was entered into between them and the Complainant, no privity of contract or cause of action exists between the Parties 2 to 4 and the Complainant. Further this Commission has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint only when the terms and conditions of IndiGo Contract of Carriages clearly stipulates Courts at New Delhi to settle the disputes and further the deficiency alleged to have been taken at Madurai Airport and not in Chennai, and the Complainant had not pleaded how this Commission has got jurisdiction as no cause of action has arisen in Chennai. The present Complaint is baseless, vague, frivolous and devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed in limine. They had submitted that the present complaint pertains to a Counter No show as the Complainant had failed to report at Check-in counter for their flight No.6E-7194 at Madurai Airport within the mandate check-in deadline and prior to its closure at 14.45 hours, i.e., 45 minutes before scheduled time of departure of the said flight at 15.30 hours. Hence they were constrained to declare the Complainant as “Counter No Show” as per the binding terms of their Contract of Carriage. Nevertheless, it is immaterial as to when the Complainant reached the Madurai airport, since the Complainant has failed to reach the check-in counter at the Madurai Airport for the IndiGo Flight within the mandated check-in deadlines and as a result has failed to board the IndiGo Flight. Further no documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that the Complainant had reached at the check-in counter with mandate check-in deadline or any time before the closure of the Check-in counter. As the Complainant was declared Counter No Show, the entire booking amount was liable to be forfeited and he was entitled only for the No Show taxes and accordingly a sum of Rs.268/- was refunded to the account of the Complainant on 01.10.2020, which is 10 months prior to the filing of the present complaint on 17.08.2021.Though their staffs have no obligation, as a goodwill gesture had offered to re-accommodate the Complainant on board in their next available flight subject to applicable re-accommodation charges, which was refused by the Complainant for the reasons best known to him. They have acted in due accordance with applicable IndiGo CoC which was binding agreement between them and the Complainant. It was submitted that the Complainant has failed to provide any documentary proof in order to substantiate his claim of residence thus, the same is denied. It was denied as irrelevant that the Complainant was undergoing any alleged medical treatment from any doctor or at any hospital at Chennai as well as denied as irrelevant that the Complainant occasionally had to travel from Madurai to Chennai for any alleged medical check- up and was availing the services of InterGlobe Aviation Limited to travel between Madurai and Chennai, as the same has no bearing on the present dispute. It was also denied that the Complainant web checked-in 48 hours prior to the departure of the IndiGo Flight, as the Complainant completed the web check-in for the IndiGo Flight at 11.22 hours on 05.08.2020, the document alleged to have been produced has not been served and hence they were unable to verify the veracity of claim of the Complainant. Further, the alleged TN e-pass obtained by the Complainant has not been served, hence they were unable to verify the veracity of claim of the Complainant. Regarding the Complainant had faced difficulty due to alleged Covid-19 pandemic lockdown restrictions in Madurai and took an auto rickshaw in order to commute from Madurai International City to Madurai Airport, as no other public transport service apart from auto rickshaw was available to the Complainant, the Complainant has failed to provide any documentary proof or evidence in order to substantiate his claims. Nevertheless, it is immaterial as to when the Complainant reached the Madurai airport, since the Complainant has failed to reach the check-in counter at the Madurai Airport for the IndiGo Flight within the mandated check-in deadlines and as a result has failed to board the IndiGo Flight. The Complainant has failed to provide any evidence in order to substantiate his claim regarding the advice of any staff of their staff due to which the Complainant allegedly reported at 1445 hours on 06.08.2020 at Madurai Airport, as earlier he used to be reach Madurai Airport 1 hour 15 minutes prior to the departure of flights. At any point of time their staff had not advised the Complainant that to reach Madurai Airport 45 minutes before the scheduled time of departure of the IndiGo Flight as the Madurai Airport is not as big as Chennai Airport provided that the Complainant had completed the web check-in. Instead, they strongly advise their customers to reach the airport 2 hours prior to the scheduled time of departure of their flight in order to complete all the check-in and boarding formalities within the stipulated timelines. The same information was duly mentioned in the IndiGo CoC, which is the binding agreement between them and the Complainant. The Complainant had not reported at their check-in counter 45 minutes prior to the scheduled time of departure of the IndiGo Flight and had reported at their check-in counter of at 1455 hours i.e. 10 minutes after the check-in counter was closed for the IndiGo Flight. It was mandatory for the Complainant to report 45 minutes prior to the departure of the IndiGo Flight i.e. 15.30 hours to check-in his baggage however, the Complainant failed to do the same and reported only 35 minutes prior to the departure of the IndiGo Flight due to which their staff was constrained to declare the Complainant as "Counter No Show". Hence the Complainant had made illogical assertions as the Complainant himself alleged that he reached Madurai Airport at 1445 hours then how is it possible for the Complainant to report at the check-in counter at the same time. Therefore, it is evident that the Complainant is only making false assertions in order to mislead this Hon'ble Commission. The allegations of assistance sought by the Complainant from the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Party and the entire allegations of the said staffs are completely denied and had made a baseless and false narrative with the sole intention to embroil them in frivolous litigation. No evidence has been brought on record in support of the claims made against their staffs. The Airlines cannot maintain their tight flight schedules and perform their larger duty of responsibility and care owed to other passengers who have reported on time, if they are obliged to wait for each and every passenger even after the prescribed time limit for check-in. The other passengers booked on board the IndiGo Flight who had reported to the check-in counter and boarding gate within the mandated and stipulated check-in and boarding timelines successfully boarded the IndiGo Flight. Further, there are no provisions in the IndiGo CoC which permits them to provide any priority treatment to passengers for check-in or separate arrangements whereby the procedure therein can be side-stepped. They had acted strictly in accordance with the contract between the Complainant and Inter Globe Aviation Limited i.e. the binding terms of the IndiGo CoC. The Complainant had made-up a story in order to unduly enrich himself at their cost and expense, as the Complainant was declared "Counter No Show" for the IndiGo Flight due to his own negligence and default in adhering to the stipulated timelines for the check-in procedures and under no circumstance they could have allowed the Complainant to board the IndiGo Flight as per the binding terms of IndiGo CoC. It was further submitted that their staffs purely as a goodwill gesture, offered to re-accommodate the Complainant on the next available flight subject to availability and fare difference but this offer was refused by the Complainant for reasons best known to him, hence they had refunded the No Show taxes amounting to Rs.268/- to the account of the Complainant on 01.10.2020 and acted in strict accordance with the binding terms of IndiGo CoC and cannot be held liable for the negligence and fault on part of the Complainant. They deny that the Complainant purchased any alleged ticket for INR 6,150/- from SpiceJet Airlines on 07.08.2020 or reached Chennai on 07.08.2020 and despite the negligence on the part of the Complainant and without any obligation to do so, their staff purely as a goodwill gesture offered to re-accommodate the Complainant on the next available flight subject to availability and fare difference but the Complainant refused the same for the reasons best known to him. The contents of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint are denied. It is denied as irrelevant that the Complainant is allegedly a gazetted officer in the government of Tamil Nadu, as the binding terms of IndiGo CoC remains equally applicable on all their customers and the Complainant cannot be given any priority treatment basis his alleged designation in any alleged government. It is denied that any conduct or act on the part of InterGlobe Aviation Limited caused any mental agony or financial loss to Complainant in any manner, as alleged and any staff of their staff was rude or misguided the Complainant, as alleged. They were not liable to pay any compensation as alleged by the Complainant in the complaint, as they had refunded the No Show taxes of Rs.268/- to the Complainant, for which he is entitled for, which stance was duly communicated to the Complainant vide email dated 12.08.2020. They had not wrongly declared the Complainant as "Counter No Show" or wrongly declared the request for compensation of the Complainant. There was no deficient in their services towards the Complainant in any manner and the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on their part and hence the present Complaint is maintainable under 2019 Act for adjudication by this Hon'ble Commission. It was submitted that this Hon'ble Commission does not have the jurisdiction to hear the present Complaint, inasmuch as the agreed terms and conditions of the IndiGo CoC, which govern air travel with Inter Globe Aviation Limited and which are binding on the parties, clearly stipulate that the courts of New Delhi shall settle all disputes arising out of or in connection with the said conditions of carriage. In view thereof, the present Complaint deserves outright rejection as this Hon’ble Commission does not have the jurisdiction to decide the same. No valid cause of action exists in favour of the Complainant and against them within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission, as the action of dispute does not arise in Chennai and the cause of action arose at Madurai on 06.08.2020 when the boarding was denied by them to the Complainant for their IndiGo Flight. Further submitted that owing to the nature and scope of operations conducted by InterGlobe Aviation Limited on account of operational circumstances and exigencies, such as amendment of load sheet, change in head count, re-opening of baggage holds to accept check-in baggage, adherence to on-time performance and least inconvenience to passengers who adhered to the check-in timelines etc., it is not always possible for InterGlobe Aviation Limited to accept passengers after the closure of the check-in counter. Hence they reserve their right to refuse carriage to passengers who fail to complete the check- in formalities within the stipulated timeline under the binding IndiGo CoC. They cannot be held liable for any hardship which may have been caused to the Complainant due to his own negligence. They were not liable to compensate the Complainant for the reliefs claimed in the complaint the alleged, which lacks on material evidence and as the entitled refund has been made to the Complainant. The Complainant is only attempting to unduly enrich himself at their cost and expense by way of present Complaint. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.    

4. The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6. The Opposite Parties submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Opposite Parties documents were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-10.

5.   Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether this Commission had got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

4. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point Nos.1 and 2:

6.    It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had booked a ticket for travel from Madurai to Chennai on 06.08.2020 in flight No.6E-7194 of the 1^st Opposite Party’s IndiGo Airlines, scheduled for departure from Madurai airport at 3.30 pm.

7.    The disputed facts of the Complainants are that he had made web check-in and got his boarding pass issued more than 48 hours prior to the departure of the flight, as per the advice of the airlines. He had obtained TN E-pass in compliance of the regulations of Government of Tamil Nadu and on 06.08.2020, due to the then existing Covid-19 pandemic lockdown restrictions in Madurai, with great difficulty, he had availed the services of a reluctantly agreed auto rickshaw to commute from Madurai city to Madurai international airport, as no other public transport services were available and reached Madurai airport at 2.45 p.m,i.e., 45 minutes before the time of departure of the flight. He approached 4^th Opposite Party in good faith with the bona-fide expectation that the said customer care staff would be courteous and assist him to board the flight which was to depart only after 45 minutes, but he had wasted 15 minutes and thereafter had expressed his inability when the available time was only 30 minutes for departure of the flight. And he was not allowed considering his status to meet the 4^th Opposite Party to seek permission to board the flight. Though he had politely and fervently pleaded with the 4^th Opposite Party that he had already taken boarding pass and TN e-pass and he will be suffering severe financial loss if he was not allowed to board the flight, but the Opposite Party had acted very rude and arrogant and their ego was preventing them from helping the innocent Complainant. The 3^rdand 4^th Opposite Party being designated as customer care staff by 1^st Opposite Party instead of helping and assisting its valued customers, showed scant reflection to their designation of their behavior. At the end, he was not allowed to board the flight which compelled him to take an auto rickshaw back to the hotel for staying in Madurai, by which he had lost the ticket booking amount of Rs.6968/-. The 3^rdand 4^th Opposite Parties had acted as if they were the sales agents of 1^st Opposite Party and advised him to come to the airport on 7^th August and on payment of some extra money, they will verify the availability of ticket in the airlines and if available would allow him to board the flight. Since their advice doesn't seem to be genuine and was filled with lots of mala-fides and uncertainty, he had purchased a ticket for Rs.6,150/- from SpiceJet airlines on 7^th August 2020 and reached Chennai on 7^th August 2020. Due to the illegal and mala-fide behaviour of the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties, he had to unnecessarily suffer additional expenses of around Rs.1,500/- for auto rickshaw charges for three trips from Madurai city to airport and back and also had to spend Rs.1,100/- for an additional day's stay at the hotel in Madurai. The Opposite Party have no regard to the welfare of their valued customers and their arrogance and mala-fide behaviour to assist a gazetted Officer in the Government of Tamil Nadu caused him severe mental agony and financial loss when the whole world was suffering from the Covid-19 Pandemic. Being aggrieved by the action of the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties submitted a complaint by email to the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties requesting them to look in to the matter immediately and take necessary disciplinary action against 4^th Opposite Party for being rude and misguiding the Complainant and also order for a compensation of Rs.6968/- towards ticket charges, Rs.10.000/- towards hotel stay and auto rickshaw charges and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment meted-out to him. Instead enquiring into the matter to ascertain the truth had replied through the 2^nd Opposite Party vide email dated 12.08.2020 and declined compensation to the count and made a meager refund of Rs.268/- on 01.10.2020. The action of the Opposite Parties clearly demonstrates their deficiency of service and he is entitled for damages for the injuries suffered.

8.     The Contentions of the Opposite in this regard are that the allegation of the Complainant that he had done web checked-in 48 hours prior to the departure of the IndiGo Flight was denied as he had completed the web check-in for the IndiGo Flight at 1122 hours on 05.08.2020. On 06.08.2020. Since the Complainant had failed to report at Check-in counter for their flight No.6E-7194 at Madurai Airport within the mandate check-in deadline and prior to its closure at 1445 hours, i.e., 45 minutes before scheduled time of departure of the said flight at 1530 hours., they were constrained to declare the Complainant as “Counter No Show” as per the binding terms of their Contract of Carriage. Nevertheless, it is immaterial as to when the Complainant reached the Madurai airport, since the Complainant has failed to reach the check-in counter at the Madurai Airport for the IndiGo Flight within the mandated check-in deadlines and as a result had failed to board the IndiGo Flight. No documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that the Complainant had reached at the check-in counter with mandate check-in deadline or any time before the closure of the Check-in counter. Further contended that as the Complainant was declared Counter No Show, the entire booking amount was liable to be forfeited and he was entitled only for the No Show taxes and accordingly a sum of Rs.268/- was refunded to the account of the Complainant on 01.10.2020, which is 10 months prior to the filing of the present complaint on 17.08.2021. Though their staffs have no obligation, as a goodwill gesture had offered to re-accommodate the Complainant on board in their next available flight subject to applicable re-accommodation charges, which was refused by the Complainant for the reasons best known to him. Further contended that they had acted strictly in accordance with the contract between the Complainant and InterGlobe Aviation Limited i.e. the binding terms of the IndiGo CoC. They are bound by the binding terms of the IndiGo CoC and cannot side-line the terms to mitigate the negligence on part of the Complainant. Further contended that as the Complainant was declared "Counter No Show" for the IndiGo Flight due to his own negligence and default in adhering to the stipulated timelines for the check-in procedures and under no circumstance they could have allowed the Complainant to board the IndiGo Flight as per the binding terms of IndiGo CoC. Further contended that as the Complainant was declared as "Counter No Show", the entire booking amount was liable to be forfeited except for the No Show taxes however, their staff without any obligation to do so and purely as a goodwill gesture, offered to re-accommodate the Complainant on the next available flight subject to availability and fare difference but this offer was refused by the Complainant for reasons best known to him. They had refunded the No Show taxes amounting to Rs.268/- to the account of the Complainant on 01.10.2020 and they had acted in strict accordance with the binding terms of IndiGo CoC, as they were not liable to compensate the claims made by the Complainant and had duly communicated to the Complainant vide email dated 12.08.2020, hence they cannot be held liable for the negligence and fault on part of the Complainant. Further contended that the allegation of the Complainant that he had purchased ticket for INR 6,150/- from SpiceJet Airlines on 07.08.2020 or reached Chennai on 07.08.2020, were denied. Further contended that any or their conduct or act on their part caused any mental agony or financial loss to Complainant in any manner, as alleged. Except to the extent that forms part of their official record, the allegations made by the Complainant were denied, as the Complainant had failed to produce any valid evidence to substantiate any of his claims. Further contended that this Hon'ble Commission does not have the jurisdiction to hear the present Complaint, inasmuch as the agreed terms and conditions of the IndiGo CoC, which govern air travel with InterGlobe Aviation Limited and which are binding on the parties, clearly stipulate that the courts of New Delhi shall settle all disputes arising out of or in connection with the said conditions of carriage. In view thereof, the present Complaint deserves outright rejection as this Hon’ble Commission does not have the jurisdiction to decide the same. No valid cause of action exists in favour of the Complainant and against them, as cause of action of dispute arose in Chennai on 06.08.2020 when the Complainant was denied boarding. Further contended that the Complainant declared as "Counter No Show" for the IndiGo Flight due to Complainant's own negligence and default in adhering to the stipulated check-in timeline. Further contended that owing to their nature and scope of operations conducted on account of operational circumstances and exigencies, such as amendment of load sheet, change in head count, re-opening of baggage holds to accept check-in baggage, adherence to on-time performance and least inconvenience to passengers who adhered to the check-in timelines etc., it is not always possible for them to accept passengers after the closure of the check-in counter. Therefore, they reserve their right to refuse carriage to passengers who fail to complete the check- in formalities within the stipulated timeline under the binding IndiGo CoC. Further contended that they had not committed any deficient in their services towards the Complainant in any manner and the Complainant had failed to prove any deficiency of service on their part and hence they cannot be held liable for any hardship which may have been caused to the Complainant due to his own negligence and they were not liable to compensate the Complainant as alleged and claimed in the complaint, as they had already refunded “No Show taxes” amount to the account of Complainant on 01.10.2020 i.e. even before the institution of the present Complaint. Further contended that the Complainant had made false and baseless allegations against all of them, without any material proof and the Complainant had failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties by producing any valid documentary proof in order to substantiate his entire claims made in the complaint against the Opposite Parties. They were not liable to compensate the Complainant in any manner much less the reliefs claimed in the complaint.

9.     On discussions made, the contention raised by the Opposite Party with regard to whether this Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, on the ground that the agreed terms and conditions of the IndiGo Conditionsof Carriage, which govern air travel with InterGlobe Aviation Limited and which are binding on the parties, clearly stipulate that the courts of New Delhi shall settle all disputes arising out of or in connection with the said conditions of carriage, hence the complaint has to be rejected and also that no valid cause of action exists in favour of the Complainant and against them, as cause of action of dispute arose at Madurai on 06.08.2020 when the Complainant was denied boarding. In this regard the Opposite Party had relied upon a Judgement reported in (2011) 7 SCC 463, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4925 of 2011 in Interglobe Aviation Ltd Vs Satchidan and, wherein it was observed that the mere fact that a passenger may not read or may not demand a copy of Conditions of Carriage does not mean that he will not be bound by its terms. Hence the finding of the High Court that the term relating to exclusive jurisdiction should be ignored on the ground that the passengers would not have read it, was not accepted.

10.    Though the said Judgment would favour the Opposite Party when the present complaint being filed out of the exclusive jurisdiction mentioned in the Conditions of Carriage, the earlier clause of the Conditions of Carriage has to be looked into which gives right to a passenger under Limitations of Actions, that “any right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought against IndiGo within three (3) years of the date of arrival at the destination, or the date on which the aircraft was scheduled to arrive, or the date on which the carriage stopped. The method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by law of the Court where the case is heard”. As earlier clause prevails over the preceding clause, though exclusive jurisdiction vest with the Courts at Delhi to settle any disputes arising out or in connection with the Conditions of Carriage, while dealing with the point of limitation in the Conditions of Carriage the Courts which deals the issue shall determine the period of limitation, when such a right has been conferred/ provided, the 1^st Opposite Party had clearly opted their passengers to make their claim before any courts in India, and hence the exclusive jurisdiction mentioned in the conditions of carriage shall not have to be looked into strictly.

11.   It is also to be noted that the Flight ticket was booked online and the web check-in was made by the Complainant and further as the destination point was at Chennai where part cause of action arises as well as the address of the Complainant falls within the jurisdiction to maintain the complaint, hence this Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the Complainant.

12.   The Complainant had relied upon the Judgements of Our Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 1) Passed in Jet Airways (India) Ltd Vs- Varadarajan Muruga on 02.02.2016, 2) in Station Manager Vs- Dr.K.Vanlalzami on 17.05.2016 and 3) in Radha Kinkari Kejriwal Vs Jet Airways (India) Ltd & 2 others on 13.02.2017. In the judgment cited no.1 though the main appeal has been filed by the said Airways with condone delay petition, the delay petition has been decided and dismissed, consequently the appeal stood dismissed. In the Judgment Cited No.2, where the flight was rescheduled from the actual time to a time thereafter on the same day and the same was informed to all of its passengers, though the passenger/respondent in the Appeal reached one hour prior to the rescheduled time of departure, it was informed that the Counter was already closed, as the flight was overbooked. In the Judgment Cited No.3, wherein the Appellant was denied boarding pass though reached the Counter 70 minutes prior to scheduled departure of the flight though late by 5 minutes, but other passengers who arrived to the counter after her, were issued boarding pass, as the said flight was an overbooked flight the Appellant was granted with entitled compensation as per instructions of Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). Hence all the above said judgments are not applicable to the instant case on its facts and circumstances. 

13.     On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that though the Complainant had made web Check-in well in advance had failed to report the Check-in counter within stipulated time, which clearly show that the Complainant had not reached and reported the Check-in counter before its closure and it is also to be noted that the Complainant himself had admitted in his complaint that only at 2.45pm he had reached Madurai Airport, so the contention of the Opposite Parties that it would not possible to reach and report the Check-in counter at the same time when he had reached the Airport, ie., at 2.45pm, is acceptable. It is also clear that the Complainant had failed to prove that he had reported the Check-in counter within the stipulated time line of 45 prior to the departure of the subject flight as per Ex.B-3, Conditions of Carriage and in the Air Ticket, Ex.A-1, the Complainant was informed to read the terms and conditions of the conditions of carriage was made available to the Complainant.

14.    Further, as the Complainant has not reached the Check-in Counter within the time stipulated under Conditions of Carriage, Ex.B-3, which is a binding agreement between the 1^st Opposite Party and the Complainant, he was declared as “Counter No Show” and was denied boarding of the subject flight. Further as per Ex.B-3, Conditions of Carriage, as the Complainant was declared Counter No Show the ticket booking amount has to be forfeited and no given credit would be given to the Complainant, it would also be clear that the 1^st Opposite Party had refunded a sum of Rs.268/- towards “No Show taxes” as per the said Conditions of Carriage, the refund of the said sum was admitted by the Complainant in the complaint, the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation from the 1^st Opposite Party. As rightly pointed by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant had not produced any material evidence to substantiate his claims made against the 2^nd to 4^th Opposite Parties, and further the Complainant had not placed any material evidence before this Commission to substantiate the reliefs claimed in the complaint, even in page No.4 of Ex.A-3 the Air Ticket booked through cleartrip for his travel on 07.08.2020 from Madurai to Chennai, it was clearly mentioned in the important information column that “check-in counters at all airports close 45 minutes before departure”.

15.     Hence, it is clear that the 1^st Opposite Party had acted strictly following the terms and conditions of the Conditions of Carriage, Ex.B-3, which is binding between the 1^st Opposite Party and the Complainant, declared the Complainant as “Counter No Show” and denied boarding in the subject flight by the 1^st Opposite Party, and the denial of refund of the ticket booking amount by the 1^st Opposite Party, are legally sustainable. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 had not committed any deficiency of service to the Complainant. Accordingly Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

 

 

Point No.2 and 3:

16.    As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint. And hence the Complainant is also not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered. 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 09.03.2023

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	06.08.2020	Air Ticket: IndiGo: 6E-1794 / PNP : IM1W3A Web Check-in
Ex.A2	-	IndiGo: Boarding Pass – Covid -19
Ex.A3	07.08.2020	Air Ticket: Spicejet, Web Check – in Boarding pass and e-pass
Ex.A4	-	Complaint letter- through e-mail/sent to IndiGo
Ex.A5	-	Reply e-mail letter received from Indigo
Ex.A6	-	Hotel stay (Viswa service Apartments)

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1	-	A true copy of the letter of Authority dated 22.06.2022 and a true copy of the Board resolution dated 30.08.2018
Ex.B2	-	A true copy of the Certificate of Incorporatio of InterGlobe Aviation Limited
Ex.B3	-	A true copy of the InterGlobe Aviation Limited Coc, as applicable on the date of booking
Ex.B4	-	True copy of screenshot from  official records of InterGlobe Aviation Limited reflecting the complete details of the booking and the itinerary sent to the Complainant on his registered e-mail id
Ex.B5	-	True copy of screenshot from official records of InterGlobe Aviation Limited evidencing the web check-in of the Complainant on 05.08.2021 at 1122 hours
Ex.B6	-	True copy of the screenshot from the official records of InterGlobe Aviation Limited evidencing the Complainant being “Counter No show’ on 06.08.2021
Ex.B7	-	True copy of the e-mail received from the Complainant by the Customer relations Team of InterGlobe Aviation Limited on 06.08.2020
Ex.B8	-	True copy of the email sent by the Customer Relations Team of InterGlobe Aviation Limited to the Complainant on 12.08.2021
Ex.B9	-	True copy of the screenshot of the official record of Interglobe Aviation Limited evidencing the refund of No-show taxes of INR 268/- on 01.10.2020
Ex.B10	-	True copy of the passenger Manifest for the Indigo Flight

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT