Tripura

West Tripura

CC/61/2016

Shri Pinak Choudhury & others. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Interglobe Aviation Ltd (INDIGO) & others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.S.Choudhury, Mr.S.Choudhury, Mr.S.Chakraborty.

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 61 of 2016 

1. Shri Pinak Choudhury,
S/O- Lt. Ranendra Nath Choudhury,

2. Smt., Sonali Chakraborty,
W/O- Shri Pinak Choudhury,

3.Master Rounak Choudhury,
S/o- Shri Pinak Choudhury,

4. Shri Narayan Chakraborty,
S/O- Late Upendra Kr. Chakraborty,

5. Smt. Sebika Chakraborty,
W/O- Shri Narayan Chakraborty,

All are resident of Dhaleswar, 
Road No. 6, P.S. East Agartala,
District- West Tripura.             ..…..…...Complainant.

          VERSUS

1. Interglobe Aviation Ltd.,
(Indigo), Global Business Park,
Gurgaon, Haryana, India.
Represented by the Managing Director.

2. Intergloble Aviation Ltd.(Indigo), 
Agartala Airport, P.S. Airport, 
District- West Tripura.
Represented by Station Manager.

3. Interglobe Aviation Ltd.(Indigo),
Netaji Subhash International Airport, 
(Domestic Airlines,)Kolkata,
West Bengal.
Represented by Station Manager.        ..............Opposite party.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Sri Sampad Choudhury,
                          Sri Samar Sen Choudhury,
                          Sri Sujit Chakraborty,
                          Advocates.

For the O.P. No.2             : Kaushik Deb,
                      CSE, Indigo Interglobe Aviation Ltd.
                      

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   06.12.2016

 

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by Pinak Choudhury and others against the Indigo Aviation Ltd. There are 5 petitioners in this case. They purchased E-tickets and performed journey by Indigo Airlines. They went to Bangalore via Kolkata and while returning to Agartala landed at Kolkata for availing journey to Agartala. At that time the Indigo staff in the counter denied to issue boarding pass in favour of complainant, Sebika Chakraborty. The ticket for journey from kolkata to Agartala was shown but O.P. No.3, Indigo staff refused to issue the boarding pass on the ground that Sebika Chakraborty had red eyes. It was presumed that she was suffering from conjunctivitis. No medical expert was called. On such baseless presumption boarding pass was denied. The ticket was cancelled and the fare was returned. However, less amount Rs.11,790/- was refunded against the ticket valued Rs.13,001/-. One complainant Sebika Chakarborty could not be left in such a position in the airport. So others had to cancell the ticket and had to purchase Spicejet ticket on the same day on payment of Rs.28,495/- and the 5 complainants then came to Agartala by Spicejet flight. Due to deficiency of service petitioner suffered and claimed cost of ticket, cost of litigation and also compensation, total Rs.1,36,705/-was claimed. 
        
2.        O.P. Interglobe Aviation Ltd.(Indigo) appeared, filed W.S. denying the claim. It is stated that as per clause 9 while a customer cause a reasonable fear of harm to other customer or to crew or the aircraft or safety in general then Indigo may refuse the carriage of customer. It is written contract. So, rightly  Indigo denied the boarding pass to Sebika Chakrbaorty. Petitioner is not entitled to get any amount. 

3.        On the basis of assertion denial made by both the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (I) Whether Sebika Chakraborty, complainant caused a reasonable fear of harm to other customer safety or crew in general?
        (II) Whether the O.P. harassed the petitioners by denying the boarding pass to them without just cause and the petitioner therefore entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service?

4.        Petitioner  produced the E ticket, letter of cancellation, Spicejet ticket, boarding pass, marked as Exhibit- 1 Series.
        Petitioner also produced the statement of affidavit of Pinak Choudhury.
        
5.        O.P. on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of Navneet Anand and also photocopy of Aviation rules. 

6.        On the basis of evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.
 Findings and decision:
7.        It is admitted fact that 5 petitioners purchased E ticket for availing journey in the Indigo Airlines. Ticket booked on 5th September, 2014 for availing journey on 4th November 2014. Total Rs.13,001/- was paid for availing the journey from Kolkata to Agartala. It is also established and admitted fact that all the E-tickets were cancelled on 4th November, 2014. Rs.11,790/- was refunded and in the cancellation letter issued by Indigo it is written that full refund given as Sebika Chakraborty was having conjunctivitis. It is also admitted and established from the documents that on the same date 5 petitioners availed Spicejet flight no- SG 871 and came to Agartala by purchasing E ticket and total Rs.28,495/- was paid. Departure time of Indigo was 8.45 A.M. Whereas departure time in the Spicejet was at 11.30 A.M. There was 3 hours delay for changing the flight and petitioners had to pay Rs.28,495/- for availing that journey. The ticket of the petitioners were cancelled on the ground that one of the passenger complainant Sebika Chakraborty had been suffering from conjunctivitis. 
        
8.        It is admitted fact that Sebika Chakraborty was not examined by any medical officer  for determining her conjunctivitis. The ground staff of the Indigo on presumption came to the findings that she had been suffering from conjunctivitis. As per clause 9.1 of the Aviation Rules Indigo may refuse carriage of the customer in his discretion when it is determined that customer may cause a reasonable fear of harm to other customer or the crew or safety  in general. The Indigo authority refused the carriage on the presumption that Sebika Chakraborty had been suffering from conjunctivitis. Such presumption was drawn without any just cause and without any medical examination. Some times eyes becomes red for changing of weather or for other external reason. So by noticing red eyes one should not presume it to be conjunctivitis. Unfortunately the Indigo staff without any just reason refused the valid customer to board the aircraft. Such  refusal to carriage by Indigo staff caused much harassment to the petitioner, Sebika Chakraborty and other complainants. All the petitioners are family members. One family member can not be left alone in the wilderness. All 5 members performed journey together and suddenly one was found ill by the staff of Indigo. The Indigo staff took a whimsical decision and refused her boarding. As a result all complainants had to cancel the ticket and purchased tickets in the Spicejet  and came to Agartala by Spicejet flight. 
        
9.        We have gone through the Written statement and the evidence given by the O.P. the contention of the O.P. was that as Sebika Chakrbaorty had been suffering from conjunctivitis. So, rightly her boarding was refused. But from the careful scrutiny from the evidence on record we are of the considered view that such refusal was whimsical without any just cause. Sebika Chakraborty did not cause any harm to any co-passengers. Her conduct and physical condition did not cause any reasonable fear and harm to customer or crew. Therefore, the action taken by the Indigo was uncalled for and it caused much harassment to the all the petitioner  who are the entitled to get compensation both the points are decided accordingly. 
        
10.        In view of our above findings over the two points, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners suffered because of the deficiency of service of O.P. They are entitled to get back the excess amount they had to pay for availing journey by Spicejet  from Kolkata to Agartala. Indigo authority is under obligation to pay the same i.e. amount Rs.16,705/- to the petitioner. In addition to this petitioners are entitled to get compensation Rs.25,000/- from Indigo and also Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. In total the petitioner are entitled to get Rs.46,705/-. From the Indigo authority O.Ps. We therefore direct Indigo authority O.Ps to pay the amount Rs.46,705/- to the petitioners within one month from the date of order. If the amount is not paid it will carry interest @ 9%.    

                      Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.