Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 341
Instituted on : 016.07.2019
Decided on : 06.09.2022.
1. Dr.Vishal Siwach s/o Dr. S.B.Siwach R/o 443/20 Dev Colony, Rohtak.
2. Dr.Sangeta Siwach w/o Dr. Vishal Siwach R/o 443/20 Dev Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainants.
Vs.
InterGlobe Aviation Limited(“IndiGo”) (Through its Managing director) Level 1, Tower C, Global Business Park Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurugram-122002, Haryana, India.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainants are that opposite party on 25.01.2019 advertised regarding starting of non stop flights to Istanbul, Turkey. In response to the same, complainants booked their return non-stop flight tickets on the very next day i.e 26.01.2019 with booking references No.YJJB4N for 12 May 2019 Delhi(1400hrs)-Istanbul(18:20 hrs) {Non Stop Travel Duration 06hours 20 minutes} , 19 May 19 Istanbul(20:40hrs)-Delhi(05:05hrs){Non stop Travel Duration 08 hours 25 minutes}. On 22.02.2019 to 11.04.2019 respondent company kept sending emails and SMS informing the complainants that their current itinerary has been revised by only 05 minutes. As per new itinerary there was delay of 05 minutes in arrival at Istanbul on 12 May and flight from Istanbul to Delhi was leaving early by 05 minutes on 19 May 2019. Since there was only change of 05 minutes, no action was taken by the complainants for change in itinerary. On 25 April 2019, they got a shock when they came to know about the different departure and arrival times from the advertisement published in flight magazine, whereas the regular updates from their side by SMS and emails never mentioned of these new timings. It was also noticed that now the flight has one stop whereas at the time of booking the flight was non-stop. On 26.04.2019 complainants wrote to the respondent and they confirmed that the earlier non stop flights were now having 01 stop and the travel time from Delhi to Istanbul had increased by 06 hours 20 minutes to 09 hours 35 minutes and from Istanbul Del, the travel time had increased from 08 hours 25 min to 11 hrs 05 minutes. Complainants requested the opposite party to shift their flight to other non-stop flight 6E4000 and 3E4001 for which seats were available. But the respondent company flatly refused to make any changes. Complainants serve a legal notice to the customer services, nodel officer and appellate authority asking them to change their flight to their other non-stop flight and in response to the same, the airlines further harassed the complainants by unilaterally changing the date of return travel without their consent from Istanbul-Delhi from 19 May 2019 to 31 May 2019 and after their persistent phone calls, after undergoing severe harassment and humiliation, they again changed their return flight to 19 May 2019. As such there is clear cut deficiency in service thereby causing harassment, severe mental trauma by the respondent company in not informing about the change of itinerary in time, purposely misguiding about the change of timings so that the complainants don’t have enough time to change their tickets and misusing their dominant position and changing the travel dates of flight. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that respondent may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs.500000/- to the complainant for the physical harassment, mental agony and trauma, loss which they have suffered and to award cost of litigation to the complainants.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that as per the complainant, the complainant alongwith 1 other passenger booked air tickets on 26.01.2019 for travel on 12.05.2019 from New Delhi to Istanbul and on 19.05.2019 from Istanbul to Delhi on IndiGo Flights no. 6E-11 and 6E-12 respectively. The said booking was undertaken through the complainants and was confirmed by InterGlobe Aviation under PNR no.YJJB4N. It is denied that during another Indigo international flight on 25th April 2019, the complainants were shocked to see an advertisement published in the flight magazine showing a different departure and arrival time. The complainant has failed to support this allegation with any documentary proof. It is specifically denied that the opposite party indulged in any mischief of not informing the complainant of the changes in schedule of flights or misguided the complainants on any account. It is submitted that the opposite party has, on all occasions of rescheduling, informed the complainants of the same via email and/or SMS. It is also submitted that the opposite party has placed on record the relevant IndiGo CoC which form a binding contract between the opposite party and the complainant herein. The IndiGo CoC clearly lays down that: ‘At any time after a booking has been made, we may change our schedule and/or cancel, terminate divert, postpone, reschedule or delay any flight where we reasonably consider this to be justified by circumstances beyond our control, or for reasons of safety, or for commercial reasons. Circumstances beyond IndiGo’s control can include without limitation, weather, air traffic control, mechanical failures, act of terrorism, act of nature, force majeure, strikes, riots, wars, hostilities,, disturbances, governmental regulations, order demands or requirement, shortage of critical manpower, parts or material labour unrest etc.’ The closure of Pakistan’s airspace in February 2019 is subject matter of national news and this Hon’ble Commission may please take judicial notice of it. It is submitted that owing to the strained relationship between the two nations and the tension brewing at the time, the opposite party opted to give its passengers’ safety paramount importance, hence re-routed its flights from New Delhi-Istanbul-New Delhi via Doha and Ahmedabad for the following months. The complainants were rescheduled on the best possible options available for them, which they in fact, chose to go ahead with, having had no qualms about it in the duration of the journey. No legal notice was served by the complainant on the opposite Party on 29th April 2019. It is specifically denied that the opposite party harassed the complainant in any manner whatsoever. There was no delay in the scheduled arrival of the rescheduled flight 6E-11 from New Delhi to Istabnbul on 12.05.2019. The flight 6E-12 departed from Istanbul at 2040 hours which was the same time as per the original booking. The only difference being landing of the flight in Delhi at 0745 hours instead of 0505 hours, which is hardly a ground for unimaginable losses as claimed by the complainant herein. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs..
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on dated 20.01.2020. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R9 and closed his evidence on dated 30.03.2021.
4. We have heard both the parties and have also gone through the written arguments filed by ld. counsel for the opposite party and s well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case the grievance of the complainants is that they had booked their non-stop flight tickets on 26.01.2019 with booking references No.YJJB4N for 12 May 2019 Delhi(1400hrs)-Istanbul(18:20 hrs), 19 May 19 Istanbul(20:40hrs)-Delhi(05:05 hrs). But the opposite party without the consent of complainants and without any information, changed the timings of flights with stoppage whereas at the time of booking the flight was non-stop. Due to not informing about the change of itinerary in time, misguiding about the change of timings and changing the travel dates of flight, they suffered mental agony and harassment and as such complainants have sought compensation for the same. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party is that due to non-availability of Pakistan Airspace for flights transiting through Delhi FIR into Pakistan Airspace, all flights were planned through alternate route. It is further contended that the closure of Pakistan’s airspace in February 2019 is subject matter of national news. It is submitted that owing to the strained relationship between the two nations and the tension brewing at the time, the opposite party opted to give its passengers’ safety paramount importance, hence re-routed its flights from New Delhi-Istanbul-New Delhi via Doha and Ahmedabad for the following months. The complainants were rescheduled on the best possible options available for them, which they in fact, chose to go ahead with, having had no qualms about it in the duration of the journey. Opposite party never harassed the complainant in any manner whatsoever. There was no delay in the scheduled arrival of the rescheduled flight 6E-11 from New Delhi to Istanbnbul on 12.05.2019. The flight 6E-12 departed from Istanbul at 2040 hours which was the same time as per the original booking. The only difference being landing of the flight in Delhi at 0745 hours instead of 0505 hours. To prove its contention, opposite party has placed on record copy of NOTAM Ex.R4, copy of newspaper Ex.R5 about the closure of Pakistani airspace, copy of news Ex.R6 about reopening of airspace dated 16 July 2019. Hence from the alleged documents placed on record by the opposite party it is observed that the flights were rescheduled due to operational reasons i.e. non-availability of Pakistan Airspace for flights and due to security reasons. It is also observed that as per the copies of emails placed on record by the complainants Ex.C3, complainants were duly informed about the rescheduling of flights. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.09.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
.....................................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
