BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.471 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 13.11.2018

      Date of Decision:18.04.2022

1.       Manjit Singh; S/o Late S. Jagtar Singh; aged 64 years; R/o D-6,         Silver Heights Apartments (near Wadala Chowk), Jalandhar,       Punjab,144003.

2.       Hardeep Kaur; W/o S. Manjit Singh; D/o Late S. Dayal Singh;          aged 56 years; R/o D-6,       Silver Heights Apartments (near         Wadala Chowk), Jalandhar, Punjab,144003.

3.       Parneet Kaur D/o Manjit Singh; S/o Late S. Jagtar Singh; aged 31     years; R/o D-6, Silver Heights Apartments (near Wadala      Chowk), Jalandhar, Punjab,144003.

4.       Harmanpreet Kaur, D/o S. Manjit Singh; W/o Sh. Inderpreet    Singh Kukreja, aged 36 years; R/o House No.#143, Sector-15,         Panchkula, Haryana.

5.       Ojas Kukreja S/o Sh. Inderpreet Singh Kukreja, aged 11 years;          R/o House No.#143, Sector-15, Panchkula, Haryana. Through his         mother Mrs. Harmanpreet Kaur; D/o S Manjit Singh/ W/o Sh.     Inderpreet Singh Kukreja; aged 36 years; R/o House No.#143,          Sector-15, Panchkula, Haryana.

..........Complainants

Versus

1.       InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo Airlines), Registered Office      at Ground Floor, Thapar House, # 124, Janpath, New Delhi- 110001 India. Through its C.E.O./M.D.

2.       InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo Airlines), Corporate Office       at Level-1, Tower C, Global Business Park, MG Road, Gurgaon (Gurugram), Haryana, 122002. Through its C.E.O./M.D.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:       Sh. Akbarjit Singh, Adv. Counsel for the Complainants.

                   Sh. Shiva Beri, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that the complainant No.1 alongwith the complainant No.2 to 5 had planned a trip to Patna Shahib, Bihar with his family and had booked five air tickets for him and for complainants No.2 to 5 from the OP airline to travel from Delhi to Patna having Flight No.6E 415 with the booking reference GEN6GT (for complainant No.1 & 2), ME6FMQ (for complainant No.3) and XDJDPM (for complainant No.3 & 4) for Rs.16,195/- with booking status ‘Confirmed’ and payment status ‘Approved/Complete’. That the intimation regarding the confirmation of the air tickets was sent electronically by the auto mailing system of the OP to the email address of the complainant No.1. The complainant No.1 alongwith his family had reached at the Delhi Airport Terminal-1 on 16.03.2018 at about 13:00 hrs by using the services of the Airport Metro. The complainant No.1 alongwith his family got placed themselves in front of the TV screen, but there was no indication of the status of the said flight operated by the OP, but suddenly the complainants noticed the display board which now indicated boarding regarding the said flight. The complainant No.1 alongwith his family rushed to the boarding counter for the flight no.6E 415 being run by the OP for boarding, on the contrary they were informed that boarding was already closed. The complainants were shocked to hear this as they had already settled their tour itinerary i.e. further travel and hotel booking etc. as per the timings of the flight. That when the complainants approached the staff of the airline, where they further rubbed salt to their injuries by asking to deposit another Rs.19,410/- for the next flight from Delhi to Patna at 06:35 am next morning. Since as mentioned above the complainants had their tour programme already settled and the complainants could not afford changing the same. The complainants felt very much harassed and mentally tortured at the hands of the staff of the OP for non-assistance approach, resulting into the deficiency of service. That after sniffing the non-cooperative attitude of the staff of the OP, the complainant No.1 alongwith his family were forced to take alternative remedy and the complainants had been constrained to book another 5 air tickets from Delhi to Patna of Spice Jet airline for Rs.26,805/- on the spot for the same day to reach at Patna Sahib to reach as per the schedule fixed. That the complainant No.1 had started correspondence with the OP since 21.03.2018 regarding the mental pain and physical harassment, inconvenience and mental agony meter out to the complainants by the OP for providing deficient services to the complainants and maltreating them. That in further communication from the OP’s side and the complainant No.1’s side, the guilt of the OP shined out as they had admitted the rightful claim of the complainant and offered the complainants vouchers for 50% discount of the total value in any of next flight with indigo. The complainant had demanded the complete return of his money for which the OP had not agreed. The deficiency in service is therefore admitted by the OP when they had offered the complainant No.1 with the discount coupons for their next travel. That the complainants had suffered the huge loss, mental agony, tension and harassment due to the deficiency of the service on the part of the OP and due to unfair trade practices and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.16,195/-, the price of the air tickets purchased by the complainant at the first instance with interest @ 24% per annum from the day of payment to the date of filing. Further OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.35,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed before this Commission without jurisdiction, in as much as no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission and neither does Inter Globe Aviation Limited reside, carry on business or operate a branch office within the jurisdiction of this Commission. It is further averred that the complainants have concealed material facts from this Commission which evinces their malafide intention and therefore, the complaint ought to be dismissed on this ground also and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2, very minutely.

6.                The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the OPs is that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not covered under Section 2 (1) (c) (iii) of 1986 Act because there are no allegations of deficiency in service as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is the fault of the complainant who reported the concerned counter after 45 minutes of the scheduled departure time and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. He has referred the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as under:-

          i. Consumer Unity & Trust Society v. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, (1995) 2 SCC 150 at Page    152.  

          ii.  Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Anr.,     (2000) 1 SCC 66 (at para 6)        

7.                The Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that there is deficiency in service as there was no intimation on the display board regarding the status of the flight 6E 415 and this clearly shows that there is deficiency in service. Thus, the complaint is maintainable as he is covered under Section 2 (1) (c) (iii).

8.                It is not disputed that as per the conditions laid down in Ex.OP-6 the customer is to approach for check-in about 45 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time and the law referred by Ld. Counsel for the OPs is also not disputed that if the customer is at fault, then he is not to be given any benefit, but in the present case, the facts are different as the allegations of the complainant are that there was no display on the display board regarding status of the flight, when it was the duty of the Airline to make the customers aware about the latest position and status of the flights, which is displayed on the display board. Since, there are allegations against the OPs for not providing service to the customer and not giving assistance to the complainant regarding the boarding of the flight scheduled to depart at 03:40 PM, therefore, there are clear cut allegations against the OPs regarding the deficiency in service. Once there are allegations of deficiency in service, the complainant is covered under the provision of Section 2 (1) (c) (iii) and complaint is maintainable.

9.                The complainant has proved on record that the complainant No.1 got booked five air tickets for himself as well as for the complainants No.2 to 5 from the OP from Delhi to Patna having Flight No.6E 415 for Rs.16,195/-. Ex.C-1 is the copy of Air Tickets, which show that the booking status of the tickets was confirmed and payment status was approved. The tickets were for 16.03.2018 and 19.03.2018 from Delhi to Patna and from Patna to Delhi respectively. As per Ex.C-1, the time of departure of the flight was 03:40 P.M. and the time for check-in was 02:55 P.M. Ex.C-2 is the tax invoice showing the payment of the charges for the flight and Ex.C-3 is the credit card statement showing the transaction for purchase of the tickets. As per these documents, the complainant was to check-in at 02:55 PM. It is admitted by the OPs that the complainant reported at 15:14 hrs., which is 41 minutes prior to the departure as per Ex.C-9.

10.              The contention of the complainant is that the complainant reached at the Airport and was sitting in front of TV screen i.e. Flight Boarding Status Display Board at 13:15 PM. Since, there was no display and indication of the status of the flight operated by OP, therefore, they could not check-in 45 minutes prior to the departure, but suddenly when they noticed the display board, which indicated the status of the flight very late, they immediately rushed to the Boarding Counter and reached there at 15:14 PM. Now the point in controversy is as to whether the delay in reaching the boarding counter is intentional on the part of the complainant or is due to deficiency in service by the OP by not displaying the status of the flight on the TV Display.

11.              The complainant has proved on record the tickets of Metro showing that they purchased the tickets on 16.03.2018 at 12:14 hours. These are five tickets as per Ex.C-4. This clearly shows that they boarded the Metro at 12:14 or 12:30 at the maximum. If we consider the tickets, it can very well be presumed that they might have reached at the destination after about one hour as the Metro takes maximum one hour to reach even at the last station, meaning thereby that they might have reached by 01:15 or 01:30 PM in the Airport.

12.              The contention of the OP is that the complainant never saw the listing board and status of their flight on the display board and it was only at 15:14 hours when they saw the status and the time for check-in. It is the complainant, who never reported in time, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant never suffered any loss and the delay is intentional on their part.

13.              There is no doubt about it that as per the ticket, the time to check-in is 14:55 hours. The case of the complainant is based only on this fact that there was no display of the status of flight and this fact has been refuted by the OPs and they stated that it is the complainant who did not see the status. Thus, the onus was upon the OPs to prove that there was a clear indication of the status of the flight 6E 415. The OP has not produced on record any document to show the time when the status of the flight 6E 415 was indicated on the display board in the Airport.

14.              The OPs themselves have admitted that the complainant reached 41 minutes prior to the time of departure, whereas they were to reach 45 minutes prior. It cannot be presumed that a person, who has come to the Airport only for the purpose of boarding the flight and has got booked the hotel and taxi services and they have already settled their tour itinerary would intentionally delay to check-in the Boarding Counter. They have boarded the Metro at 12:14 PM and there was a gap of approximately three hours in reaching for check-in and nobody would intentionally delay to cause any loss to himself.

15.              It has been alleged by the complainant that the OPs demanded Rs.19,410/- for the next flight from Delhi to Patna at 06:35 AM next morning. Since, the complainant was having tour programme already settled, therefore, they had to buy the tickets and the same have been proved as Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 for Rs.26,805/-. These tickets have been proved which show that inspite of spending Rs.19,410/- as alleged by the complainant, he had to purchase tickets for Rs.26,805/- in order to maintain the connectivity with his taxi providers and etc. He purchased the tickets from Spice Jet. He has also proved on record the correspondence with the OPs as Ex.C-8, Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10, which show that he has been in continuous touch with the OPs to get his grievance redressed, but he could not get his grievance redressed by the OPs. He was offered the discount coupons for their next travel by the OPs. This also clearly shows that in order to save themselves from facing the consequences for their fault, this offer was given by the OPs which has not been denied by the OPs. Therefore, the complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service, hence he is entitled for the relief claimed.  

16.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the price of the Air Tickets i.e. Rs.16,195/- as claimed with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant and further OPs are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

17.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon                    Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

18.04.2022                     Member                                 President