Tripura

StateCommission

A/42/2017

Dr. Bikas Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Interglobe Aviation limited (Indigo) - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Rakhal Ch. Debnath, Mr. Amrit Lal Saha, Mr. Kajal Nandi, Mr. Abheek Saha

17 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.42.2017

 

1. Dr. Bikas Roy,

S/o Late Birendra Ch. Roy,

 

2. Smt. Santa Roy,

W/o Dr.Bikas Roy,

Both are resident of Lake Road, Krishnanagar,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin: 799001.

… … … … … Appellant/Complainants.

•                   

 

1. Interglobe Aviation Ltd.(IndiGo),

Central Wing, Ground Floor,

Thapar House, 124, Janpath,

New Delhi- 110001, India.

[Through its Managing Director]

 

2. IndiGo Office,

Agartala Airport, Narsingarh,

Agartala, West Tripura.

• Through its In-charge]

… … … … … Respondent/Opposite parties.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

For the Appellants:                                         Mr. Rakhal Chandra Debnath, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                     Mr. Koushik Roy, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:     17.11.2017.

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellants, Dr. Bikas Roy and Smt. Santa Roy under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 12.07.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala, (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), in Case No. C.C. 38 of 2017 for enhancement of the awarded amount.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Dr. Bikas Roy, an eminent doctor and senior citizen, was invited by the Government of India to receive the National Award from the hands of the Hon’ble President of India in a function at Rashtrapati Bhawan on 14.11.2016 and upon receipt of the said invitation, he along with his wife who is also a senior citizen went to New Delhi for receiving the award. For return journey, they purchased air tickets on payment of Rs.9,342/- for their travel from Delhi to Kolkata on 17^thNovember, 2016 from the opposite parties-IndiGo. Their flight No. was 6E-283 and PNR was TH3SHH.The departure time of the flight was 16.45 hours. To avail the flight, both of them reached New Delhi Airport and collected their boarding pass at about 03.00 p.m. Thereafter, both the complainants, the appellants herein, went to the security enclosure. As there was a chaos and long queue in the security gate, they wanted to get help from the IndiGo staffs, but no IndiGo officials helped them and even not contacted with them despite repeated requests. After security check, when they went to the gate No.9B for boarding the flight, the officials of IndiGo told that they were 5 minutes late, as they were supposed to be boarded 25 minutes before departure, thus they would not be allowed to be boarded in the flight. The opposite parties-IndiGo officials did not render any help to them and ultimately they purchased tickets  from the IndiGo counter for their journey from New Delhi to Kolkata by the next flight at the cost of Rs.13,112/-. After reaching at Kolkata Airport at about 19.05 hours at night, they could not get their luggage at Kolkata Airport and finally they received the luggage at about 11.30 p.m. as the luggage was sent by the next flight. Opposite parties neither enquired about the condition of the passengers nor extended any help even at the Kolkata Airport. Complainants made complaint to the Aviation Company, IndiGo, but no redress was given. Therefore, for deficiency of service and prolonged sufferings, they filed a complaint case before the learned District Forum claiming an amount of Rs.5 lacs as compensation.

3. Opposite parties-respondents appeared and filed written statement denying the claim of the complainant. In their written statement, they have stated that their carriage was governed by the IndiGo Condition of Carriage Domestic. E-tickets do not contain complete conditions of the carriage. As per terms and conditions, check-in closes within 45 minutes prior to scheduled departure time. The check-in would be declared 'No Show' if customer failed. As per another condition, boarding gate will be closed 25 minutes before the departure time. Customer must have to remain present at the gate not later than the time specified by Indigo. Otherwise they shall be treated as ‘Gate No Show’ and the ticket amount purchased should be forfeited. Complainant arrived at the gate at 04.38 p.m. whereas the boarding gate closed at 04.20 p.m. in accordance with the condition. There was no deficiency of service and complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.
4. The learned District Forum after going through the evidence on record as well as pleadings of the parties awarded an amount of Rs.28,112/- (Rs.13,112/- for the cost of ticket + Rs.10,000/- for sufferings and mental agony + Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation). The amount is to be paid within two months, if not paid, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.
5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned District Forum dated 12.07.2017, the complainants, the appellants herein, filed the instant appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount. Admittedly, the respondents IndiGo did not file any appeal against the impugned judgment.
6. Heard Mr. Rakhal Chandra Debnath, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants (hereinafter referred to as complainants) as well as Mr. Koushik Roy, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Aviation Company/IndiGo).
7. Mr. Debnath, Ld. Counsel while urging for enhancement of the awarded amount would contend that when admittedly boarding pass was issued to the complainants by the IndiGo authority they cannot avoid their responsibility for helping the passenger to board the flight in time, particularly in the instant case when the passengers-complainants are at the age of 77 and 70 years respectively and also suffering from various diseases like Diabetes, hypertension etc. He further submits that Dr. Roy had to wait about two hours at Kolkata Airport for getting his luggage and as a result, both the passengers had to suffer a lot.Not only that, even the persons who were supposed to receive them in the Kolkata Airport in the earlier flight had to wait till 11.30 p.m. and that is also one kind of harassment not only for the passengers, but also to the persons who came to receive them. He finally contended that so far the costs of the air tickets awarded by the learned District Forum, he has nothing to submit, but so far the amount awarded for their sufferings and mental agony amounting to Rs.10,000/- is not only less, but also inadequate considering the height of the complainant no.1, a President awardee.
8. Mr. Roy, Ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite party IndiGo has submitted a written argument wherein he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Interglobe Aviation Limited Vs. N. Satchindanand (2011) 7 SCC 463, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph-31 stated, inter alia, that “31.……the e-tickets do not contain the complete conditions of carriage but incorporate the conditions of carriage by reference. The interested passengers can ask the airline for a copy of the contract of carriage or visit the website and ascertain the same. Placing the conditions of carriage on the website and referring to the same in the e-ticket and making copies of conditions of carriage available at the airport counters for inspection is sufficient notice in regard to the terms of conditions of the carriage and will bind the parties. The mere fact that a passenger may not read or may not demand a copy does not mean that he will not be bound by the terms of contract of carriage.”
9. Admittedly, he did not question the judgment impugned herein as the opposite parties IndiGo did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment.
10. We have gone through the aforenoted judgment. The facts of that case are totally different than the case in hand. Thus the said law report has no application in the instant case.We have also gone through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment and the law report cited by Mr. Roy. There is no doubt that a passenger is bound by the terms and contract of carriage, but here in the instant case, question is not regarding the terms and contract of carriage, but to inadequate help and harassment of the complainants though they admittedly collected their boarding pass as issued by the opposite parties-IndiGo at 03.00 p.m. i.e. well ahead of the boarding time. The opposite party though filed the written statement and submitted that there was no system in the Indira Gandhi International Airport at New Delhi for announcement, but fact remains that they did not adduce any evidence by examining any witness that the officials of the IndiGo searched for them (the complainants) to be boarded in the scheduled flight at the relevant time. For the argument sake, even if it is admitted that there was no system for announcement in the airport, but the IndiGo authority could have contacted them through the mobile phone with the passengers like the complainants as the mobile number was available with the IndiGo authority. After issuance of boarding pass it is the duty of the airlines authority like opposite parties to help the passengers so that they can board the flight in time on completion of the security check-up, but in the instant case, complainant no.1 in his deposition on oath specifically stated that he sought for help from the IndiGo people, but none of them helped them. It is also admitted position that though they collected their boarding passes and handed over the luggage to the IndiGo authority for the schedule flight, but the luggage could not reach along with them at Kolkata Airport, that itself is also a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. For the argument sake, if it is admitted that the complainants failed to board in time, but their luggage ought to have reached at Kolkata Airport by the earlier flight by which they were scheduled to reach in Kolkata, but fact remains that the luggage was not sent in the said flight also.
11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the amount awarded by the learned District Forum for sufferings and mental agony amounting to Rs.10,000/- for two persons are lesser and not adequate. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it would be proper and just if the aforesaid amount is made double i.e. from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, it is ordered and the respondent-opposite parties shall pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.13,112/- i.e. the costs of the tickets paid by them as awarded by the learned District Forum and Rs.20,000/- towards their sufferings and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. In total, the opposite parties-IndiGo shall pay Rs.13,112/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.5,000/- = Rs.38,112/-.The aforesaid amount shall be paid within six weeks, if not paid, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura