ORDER

26.07.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that complainant is a practicing advocate in Delhi High Court and is also a recommended lawyer/empanelled with the U.S. embassy in India for providing legal services to the citizens of us of India.
2. It is stated that complainant was engaged by one of the US based client Mr. V.V.Krishna Reddy through the US embassy for providing legal services and represent him before the Hon’ble court of Ist ACMM, Bangalore in Criminal complaint no.7102/2014 pending before the Hon’ble Court which was scheduled for hearing on 18.08.2015. It is further stated that OP is engaged into the aviation business and runs domestic and internation flights under the name and brand of Indigo Airlines. It is stated that considering the travel time through flight between Delhi and Bangalore is almost 2:50 Hrs and the distance of Bangalore airport to the court of Ist ACMM at Kasturba Rd, Sampangi Rama Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka 56001 is almost 50KM which takes around 1:30-2:00 hrs (approx.) travel time, the complainant had booked his flight with the Indigo airlines which was scheduled to depart from Delhi airport to Bangalore at around 5:25 am in the early morning.
3. It is stated that the complainant tickets were booked online and was given confirmed ticket for his travel in Delhi-Bangalore Indigo Flight No. 6E 113 on 18.08.2015 to attend an important meeting with another client in Bangalore which was scheduled near Court premises in a hotel at about 9am and represent his US based client in court hearing on the very same day. The complainant’s booking ticket reference no. is R5LYFF. The flight was scheduled to depart from Terminal 1 D, New Delhi at 5:25 am and the complainant reported at Airport for boarding the flight at 4:15 am. It is further stated that since the complainant was travelling for court hearing and attending a business meeting with another client of his and had to return to Delhi by late evening flight, the complainant was not carrying any check in baggage, therefore, when the complainant reached Indigo counter at Delhi airport at around 4:15 am, the complainant was asked by the Indigo staff/personnel to check in through self check in kiosk at the airport. The complainant checked in through the self check in kiosk and got an automated generated boarding pass from the self check in kiosk.
4. It is stated that since there was ample time for the complainant to board the flight and departure of the flight. The complainant sat near a eating joint close to the boarding gate after clearance and check in from the security gate manned by the CISF personnel before boarding the flight at Airport. It is further stated that whilst the complainant was sitting near the boarding gate, there were announcements on loudspeaker made with regard to Indigo flights to Srinagar, Vizag etc. by the Indigo staff and other airlines which were scheduled to depart from the airport. It is stated that there were manual announcements and loudspeaker announcements were made with regard to the passengers of Indigo airlines as well as other airlines who didn’t reach the boarding gate and were scheduled to depart considering the space constraint at the boarding gate area of the Terminal 1D of the domestic airport. The complainant realizing that all flight announcements have been made but no announcement was made for start of boarding of Bangalore bound flight/passengers for Indigo Flight No. 6E 113.
5. It is stated that complainant reached at boarding gate at around 5:15 am and enquired about the status of flight for Bangalore and when the boarding will be start as no announcement was being made and the complainant was waiting to board the flight. It is further stated that to the surprise of complainant, the personnel of the Indigo airlines informed the complainant that he has missed his flight and can’t board as the departure of the flight will be within next 10 min. It is stated that when the complainant questioned/enquired that he was having a valid boarding pass and the Indigo personnel were having the information of the complainant flying with them. Infact the complainant has checked in on time and was waiting near the boarding gate and in fact was under the impression that since the area for boarding was too crowded, therefore, to ease of access and convenience of passengers they were making announcement on loudspeaker as and when boarding for any destination starts and were even calling names of passengers who did not reach boarding gate on time after start of announcement of boarding start for any flight. The complainant enquired that whey didn’t the personnel of Indigo Airlines announced his name or call so that the complainant could board in case they started boarding without making any loudspeaker announcement.
6. It is stated that when questioned by the complainant that for other routes of Indigo airlines announcements are made and even passengers name were being called at that point of time as well, the complainant was shocked and appalled to hear the reply from the Indigo personnel at the boarding gate that their flight was full and they follow the procedure to call on loudspeaker and make announcement if there are many passengers left to be boarded and have not reported at the boarding gate and in case one or two passengers are left, they prefer to leave that passenger behind and let the flight depart without taking those passengers. It is further stated that when the complainant questioned such illogical and untenable answer given by the personnel of Indigo Airlines, the staff gave a reply that it is their discretion to call or not to call on loudspeaker as the airport is silence free zone and they are not responsible for any passenger missing the flight.
7. It is stated that complainant pleaded the Indigo personnel to allow him to board as the flight departure had not taken place and there was still time to board as the complainant was having very urgent meeting and important court hearing for which the complainant was required to be present on time at Bangalore but all in vain. They bluntly refused and asked the complainant to check for next available flight, if the complainant can be accommodated in the next flight. It is further stated that personnel from Indigo airlines did not handed over the cancelled boarding pass and the same was retained by the Indigo staff. It is further stated that the staff told the complainant that next Indigo flight 6E 109 is at 6:20 am and  need to pay Rs.8,020/- extra in case he want to travel in the flight.
8. It is stated that the complainant was shocked that despite being a low cost carrier for what reasons they are asking to pay Rs.8,020/-, moreso when the complainant was in a situation on account of sole negligence and failure attributable to Indigo airlines to call his name or announce boarding of flight; he was not able to board the flight. It is stated that complainant requested that he should not be charged extra and shall be adjusted in the next flight as he was informed by the staff at boarding gate that he will be accommodated in the next flight subject to seat availability and didn’t mention that complainant has to bear additional expense for boarding next flight. On such representation of the Indigo personnel at boarding gate, the complainant agreed to seek option to fly on the next available flight despite there was time for the departure of the flight on which the complainant was booked and was issued boarding pass.
9. It is stated that complainant questioned such arbitrary and illegal means to misrepresentation and misleading patrons of Indigo airlines is nothing but just another means to extort money from the passengers who fall pray to the misrepresentation given by the staff of Indigo airlines and fraud played upon them and taking illegal benefit considering the emergency and need of the passenger who has not been boarded on the scheduled flight for which he was bound to travel; the complainant asked to call some senior representative as the complainant was a victim and was at the mercy of the Indigo staff’s mischief played. It is stated that the staff of the Indigo replied to the complainant that he has only 5 minutes to pay else they will chose this flight as well and thereafter only 8 am flight can be booked.It is stated that it sounded like extortion and there was no help offered. It is stated that the complainant asked them to adjust the refund of fair on which the complainant could not travel due to their negligence. It is stated that Indigo personnel at the check in counter issuing boarding pass said that nothing is refundable to complainant and charged Rs.8,020/- for another ticket. It is further stated that the PNR number of the previous ticket and the second ticket issued by the Indigo airlines was same.
10. It is stated that the act of Indigo airlines staff at airport leave no iota of doubt that Flight 6E 113 was over booked by the airlines for making more profit and in order to accommodate some other passengers who was over booked, they deliberately left the complainant stranded at airport and did not even check once or make any announcement at boarding gate despite having complainant’s mobile no. and details of boarding list of passengers. It is stated that complainant is a lawyer recommended by U.S embassy and was going to Bangalore for appearing in matter of U.S client which was very important and serious in nature. It is stated that one important business meeting of the complainant got missed due to the missing of first flight for which he was having a confirmed ticket and denial to board airplane was unlawful. It is stated that complainant had to board next flight considering his urgency and had to pay extra money which was more like extortion by Indigo staff.
11. It is stated that complainant wrote an email dated 21.08.2015 to Mr. Rahul Bhatia, MD, Interglobe Aviation Ltd., describing the whole incident, mental harassment and torture faced by complainant and also about Indigo airlines lack of service, gross negligence, failure and unfair trade practice followed by the Indigo airlines and deficiency of services by the staff/personnel at airport. It is stated that on 25.08.2015 complainant received an email from Mr. Siddhart Mookerjee, Customer Relation of Indigo airlines and complainant’s grievance was recorded as CRM No.00579480. It is stated in the reply Indigo airline denied all the circumstances but flight no. was 6E 559 which itself contradicts the stand of Indigo airlines. It is stated that in the reply it was stated that Indigo airlines personnel tried manually to locate the complainant but actually nothing like that was done.
12. It is stated that Indigo airlines in the reply dated 25.08.2015 stated that the Delhi Airport is silent airport, therefore, no announcement on loud speaker are allowed to be made but complainant in response stated that on 18.08.2015 when complainant was scheduled to depart on Bangalore bound flight from the same terminal the Indigo airlines made announcement on loud speaker on the same terminal. It is stated that after issuance of the boarding pass it is the responsibility of the air lines to locate for the passenger, if not found at the boarding gate as airport is high risk zone and any passenger missing after being issued boarding pass and clearing security checking pass CISF gate may pose threat and breach security of the airport. It is stated that airlines is duty bound to trace the missing passengers as part of their obligation and responsibility to check as passenger who fails to report at scheduled boarding time may have met some contingency of medical emergency. It is stated that the airline was having the check in information of complainant but they were callous in their approach, deficient in service and shut their eyes for their obligations as a responsible air carrier.
13. It is stated that in the email dated 31.08.2015 by Mr. Ankit Saxena Customer Relations Indigo airlines clearly refused to refund any money. It is stated that it is clear case of Indigo airlines indulging in unfair trade practice by not accommodating the complainant on the flight as complainant was having confirmed ticket without giving any valid and legal reason to denial of boarding to the flight. It is stated that Indigo Airlines personnel must have followed the Civil Aviation Requirements, Section 3- Air Transport Series ‘M’ Part IV Issue 1 under Clause 3.2.2. The complainant referred the judgment of Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs. D.G. Sangal.
14. The complainant is seeking refund of cost of ticket Rs.8,020/- alongwith 18% interest, Rs.5,00,000/- towards monetary loss and damage caused to complainant as he was not able to attend his meeting at Bangalore, unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, mental harassment, agony and damage caused to the complainant and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost.
15. OP1, 2 and 3 filed WS and taken preliminary objections that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and the fact remains that complainant has suffered due to his own negligence on failure to report at the boarding gate within stipulated time and has now approached this Hon’ble Forum to harass the OP. It is stated that complainant herein reported to the boarding gate after the stipulated time for boarding of the flight and missed his flight due to his own fault for which OPs cannot be held liable. It is stated that OPs have acted in consonance with the clause 8.2 of the conditions of carriage. It is stated that complainant arrived at the boarding gate after the stipulated time period, therefore, declared as ‘Gate No Show’ due to his own negligence for which OPs cannot be held liable.
16. It is stated that complainant booked the air ticket through a travel portal namely ‘Maky My Trip’, therefore, the process of any refund has to be claimed from the online travel portal and OPs referred the clause 5.2 of the condition of carriage. The OP referred the judgment of M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd. N. Satchidanand (2011) 7 SCC 463. It is stated that present complaint is devoid of any cause of action and OPs are not deficient in service or indulged in unfair trade practice, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
17. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is stated that no announcement were made on a loud speaker with regard to the flights which are scheduled for the departure as Terminal 1D of Delhi Airport is a declared Silent Zone and as such no loud speaker announcement are allowed on the premises. It is stated that keeping in mind the convenience of passengers, in the event a passenger is late, manual announcements or announcements by way of loud speaker are made, but such announcements are restricted to the area near the boarding gate and not the whole airport. It is stated that as per clause 8.2 of the Conditions of Carriage of Indigo the boarding gates closes 25 minutes prior to the scheduled departure of the flight. In these circumstances when complainant reported at the boarding gate beyond the stipulated time and missed his flight due to his own negligence.
18. It is stated that by the complainant’s own admission he was sitting near the boarding gates, what the complainant has conveniently chosen not to mention is that multiple screens placed near the boarding gates flash the flight number, which is about to begin boarding, while it is true that loud speaker announcements are made for passengers who are late, the said announcements are restricted to the area near the boarding gates.
19. It is stated that as a customer service gesture complainant offered to reaccomodate by charging only the fare difference and necessary fees which are willfully accepted by the complainant. It is stated that boarding pass of the complainant never taken away from him. It is stated that there was no negligence on the part of OPs. It is stated that complainant is his own admission reported at the boarding gates after the closing of the gates which is in violation to the terms of the conditions of carriage. It is stated that the flight booked by complainant was not over booked and the seat booked by the complainant went vacant as the complainant failed to board the flight and as per the policy the complete booking amount was forfeited which was duly conveyed to complainant vide email dated 25.08.2015.
20. It is stated that complainant has suffered due to his own negligence to report on the scheduled time for boarding and missed his flight. It is stated that email dated 25.08.2015 duly answered to the queries of the complainant which is self explanatory. It is stated that OPs vide email dated 31.08.2015 duly answered to the query of complainant which is self explanatory. It is stated that complainant has failed to bring out any deficiency in service and there is no cause of action against OPs. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
21. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint.
22. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. Complainant relied on copy of aadhar card Ex.PW1/1, copy of ticket of Indigo flight no. 6E 133 Ex.PW1/2, copy of second ticket purchased alongwith boarding pass for flight 6E 109 Ex.PW1/3, copy of email dated 21.08.2015 Ex.PW1/4, copy of reply email by Indigo Airlines Ex.PW1/5, copy of reply to reply email sent by deponent Ex.PW1/6 and copy of email dated 31.08.2015 Ex.PW1/7.
23. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Navneet Anand Legal Counsel of OP and reiterated contents of WS. OP relied on copy of Indigo conditions of carriage Ex.R1/1, copy of email dated 25.08.2015 Ex.R1/2 and copy of email dated 31.08.2015 Ex.R1/3.
24. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as OPs.
25. We have complainant in person. Neither AR nor counsel for OP addressed final arguments despite given several opportunities. We have gone through the written arguments filed by OPs.
26. Section 11 Jurisdiction of the District Forum-

1. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed [does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs].
2. A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-

1. The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain, or
2. Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
3. The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

27. The present complaint filed mentioning complainant is the resident of pocket C-8, H.No. 512, Sector-A, Rohini Apartments, Rohini, Delhi-85. The address of OP1,2 & 3 is mentioned as  Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi-110001. As discussed herein above the territorial jurisdiction lies as per section 11of CP Act, 1986 where OP voluntarily resides or personally works for gain and the cause of action, wholly or impart arises. In the present case neither OP,1,2 & 3 voluntarily resides nor works for gain nor any cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, as per allegations in the complaint this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.
28. Now coming to merit of the case, the complainant booked air ticket for travelling from Delhi to Bangalore through Indigo Flight no. 6E113 on 18.08.2015 scheduled to depart at 05:25 AM in the morning. As per allegations of complainant he had reached the airport at 04:15 AM and check in through self check in kiosk at the airport as he was not carrying any baggage. The complainant alleged that after taking the boarding pass and clearing the security gate checking he sat near eating joint close to boarding gate before boarding the flight. The complainant also alleged that he was sitting near the boarding gate there were announcements on loudspeaker with regard to Indigo Flight going to Srinagar, Vizag etc. but no announcement of Bangalore flight. The complainant pleaded that he was waiting near the boarding gate and infect was under the impression that since the area for boarding was too crowded, therefore, to ease of access and convenience of passengers the announcement were made on loudspeaker.
29. The complainant alleged that no announcement was made on loudspeaker or manually for Bangalore flight and the Indigo personnel on enquiry that flight was full and procedure has been followed on loudspeaker and manually to all passengers but no such announcement was made. The complainant alleged that he had to purchase another air ticket for Indigo flight 6E109 scheduled at 06:20 AM and paid Rs. 8,020/- extra. The complainant alleged that he wrote email to OP2 on 21.08.2015 with regard to the incident, reply received on 31.08.2015 of Mr. Ankit Saxena customer relations wherein OP1,2 & 3 refused to refund the money.
30. As per OP1,2 & 3 the complainant failed to report at the boarding gates within the stipulated time and missed the flight due to his own fault. The OP relied on clause 8.2 of the conditions of carriage, according to which complainant treated as a “Gate no show”. The OP1,2 & 3 relied also clause 8.3 which explained that Indigo will not be liable. It is pertinent to mention here that  complainant when reached at the boarding gate after completing the procedure of check in and security check and also waiting near the boarding gate. Although he heard the announcement of flights to Srinagar and Vizag etc. then how he missed any announcement of Bangalore flight. According to complainant first he sat eating joint which was closed to boarding gate, thereafter, waiting near boarding area which was too crowded. It is pertinent to mention here that at the boarding area the display boards of all flight departure continuously display the stage of boarding of passengers regularly. The OP airline when making the announcements for other flights then why announcement for Bangalore flight was not made by the staff is not explained with plausible and satisfactory facts by the complainant. The circumstances explained by complainant  are nor satisfactory that it was the deficiency of service or fault on the part of staff of OP1,2 & 3 which resulted in missing of the scheduled flight 6E113. The complainant had purchased another air ticket for flight 6E109 scheduled at 06:20 AM to travel to Bangalore was not due to the deficiency of service but due to the exceptional facts which resulted in missing of the flight by the complainant due to the reasons known to him. The circumstances explained in the complaint and in the evidence filed by complainant by way of affidavit failed to established deficiency of service on the part of OP1,2 & 3.
31. On the basis of above observation and discussions present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
32. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  26.07.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                                                  NIPUR CHANDNA                          

       PRESIDENT                                                            MEMBER