The complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Complaint in short is as follows: -
1. Complainant is a practicing doctor and his wife is retired JD from agricultural department. The complainant and 3 others including one infant of one and half year old booked air tickets for a journey from Delhi to Calicut on 12/03/2017 in flight number Indigo RE 129. The complainant booked the ticket on 10/02/2017 through a booking agency called Yatra. The journey time was 17.40 hours on 12/03/2017 from New Delhi International Airport. Complainant and others reached at the airport at about 16.00 hours, the boarding passes were issued from the airport at 4.30 PM, the baggage were handed over for boarding in to the flight. The complainant and others were waiting in the airport for getting information of journey. It is informed from the airport that only before 30 minutes of journey passengers will be allowed to enter in to the concerned boarding gate. The complainant and his wife enquired about the arrival of the flight to the officials many times but they did not give clear information about the journey. The complainant submits that they said that they will call the complainant at the time of arrival of flight. Believing that complainant and other passengers were waiting in the airport expecting information from the officials of opposite party but no information was given by them. The complainant being worried about the act of officials, approached the concerned section and enquired about the flight. At that time shocking news was given by the officials that the flight left the airport 5 minutes ago. The complainant and others totally shocked on hearing the information and there was no other way but to return from the airport and arrange tickets for the next journey.
2. The complainant and other passengers stayed at Delhi in a hotel in that night spending huge amount for room rent and other expenses. The next day, flight to Calicut was not available and so they availed tickets to Chennai and from Chennai to Calicut. A small child aged only one and half years were also with the complainant for the journey. Complainant’s wife become unconscious due to high blood pressure. Hence, she was taken for medical care and conducted checkups. The next day though she was not fully healthy compelled to travel.
3. The opposite parties did not show any responsibility to provide correct information to the complainant about the journey. The baggage was already boarded in the flight and later baggage were removed from the flight. If the officials were conscious to give information correctly complainant could have got the flight and there was no chance of missing the flight. The baggage was already loaded to the flight and so it is sure that the passengers are in the airport. The mobile phone numbers were given and so even a phone call will help the complainant to board in the flight but it is not done by the officials of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant and the other passengers suffered much grievance in the journey.
4. Since the flight was missed, flight tickets were arranged for the next day by paying Rs.13,506/- to the opposite party company. The opposite parties were not ready to give free journey tickets to the complainant and others. More over the journey was arranged from Delhi to Chennai and Chennai to Calicut. Complainant submit that also created troubles to the complainant and other passengers. The act of opposite parties is unfair trade practice and dereliction of duty. The complainant is a senior citizen, the infant is only one and half years other two passengers were ladies also. Hence the submission of the complainant is that the officials of the opposite parties should have given more care to the complainant. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties failed to provide proper information about the departures of flight to the complainant. The complainant spends Rs.20,000/- to stay at new Delhi for one night and the complainant along with other passengers suffered mental agony also. Hence complainant pray for compensation of 1,00,000/- rupees on that account. The complainant caused a lawyer notice to the opposite parties. Hence the complainant prayer for a total compensation of Rs.1,13,506/ rupees with interest.
5. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. The complaint is not maintainable and filed with oblique and malafide motive in order to make illegal gains from the opposite parties. Complaint is baseless, vague, frivolous and devoid of merit hence liable to be dismissed in limine.
6. The opposite party admitted that the complainant booked three air tickets plus one ticket for an infant to travel on 12/03/2017 in opposite party flight bearing No. RE 129 from New Delhi to Calicut. The tickets were booked through a third-party agent. The aggregate amount of ticket cost was Rs.18,691/-. The scheduled departure time for Indigo flight No.RE 129 was 17.40 hours. The opposite party submitted that the complainant along with other accompanied passengers reported at the boarding gate on 13/03/2018 at about 13.50 hours when the scheduled time of departure of the Indigo flight was 14.05 hours. As per the conditions complainant was obliged to report to the boarding gate not later than the time specified by Indigo during check-in or through any subsequent announcement made in the airport and in any case 25 minute prior to the scheduled departure time of the flight. The complainant did not reach the boarding gate before the closure time. Hence indigo condition of carriage the opposite parties compelled to treat the complainant and his accompanying passengers as ‘Gate No Show’ and was constrained to deny boarding to the complainant. The opposite party submitted that the complainant does not complete obligation at the stage of check in, complainants’ obligations would continue even after check in and on board the aircraft also. The opposite party understanding the concern of the complainant for their self-induced trouble, offered re accommodation to the complainant and his accompanied passengers on the next available flight. The complainant and his accompanying passengers successfully availed the facilities provided by the opposite party. The complainant and his accompanying passengers accordingly re-accommodated on flight RE – 859 /RE – 238 scheduled to depart on 13/03/2017 for payment of Rs.13,506/- after adjusting the amount paid against the first booking.
7. The opposite party denied the averment that the complainant and other the passengers stayed at New Delhi in a hotel spending huge amount, complainant’s wife became unconscious due to high blood pressure, her health was not in proper condition and she was in comma are denied by the opposite party.
8. The opposite party denied that the complainant had not given correct information by the staff members of the opposite party, the Inter globe aviation limited had obligation to board passengers once their baggage loaded on an aircraft are denied. The opposite party submitted that they have no obligation to call his passengers to reach the boarding gate, if they do not reach the boarding by not complying the provisions of indigo Co C. The opposite party submitted that they have no obligation to offer free travel to those passengers who do not reach boarding gate on time at their own negligence. The opposite party submitted that the complaint is not entitled for any compensation from the opposite party.
9. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. Documents on the side of complainant marked as Ex. A1 to A7. Ext. A1 is copy of E – ticket booking dated 10/02/2017. Ext. A2 is series of out passes dated 12/03/2017. Ext. A3 is flight tickets 4 in numbers dated 13/03/2017. Ext. A4 is flight tickets dated 13/03/2017. Ext. A5 is payment receipt. Ext A6 is copy of registered lawyer notice with postal acknowledgement and receipt dated 25/09/2017. Ext. A7 is notice issued by Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas dated 12/12/2017. Documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B3. Ext. B1 is a true copy of the board resolution dated 11/12/2016. Ext. B2 is copy of screen shot stating the booking and showing scheduled time of departure for indigo flight No. RE 129 as 17.40 hours. Ext. B3 is copy of history entries dated 11/03/2017.
Now the following points arise for consideration: -
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Relief and cost?
10. Point No.1 &2
There is no dispute that the complainant availed tickets for the journey. On the day of journey, the complainant along with the other passengers reported in the airport and they were provided with boarding passes also. The luggage’s were also handed over for boarding to the flight. But the complainant and the co- passengers could not board in flight. According to the complainant they were waiting in the airport for getting information of journey and the information to the complainant was that only 30 minutes they will be allowed to enter in to the concerned terminal. But they did not receive information regarding the departure of the flight and at last it was informed that flight left before 5 minutes of departure time.
11. The opposite party has quoted definite contention that as per Indigo CoC governed the check in boarding of passengers, including the complainant and his relatives on Indigo flights. The relevant clause as follows: “8.2 Boarding – in order to maintain schedules, the boarding gate will be closed 25 minutes prior to the departure time. The customers must be present at the boarding gate not later than the time specified by Indigo when they check in or any subsequent announcements made at the airport. Any customer failing to report at the boarding within the aforesaid timelines shall be treated as a “Gate No Show “and the ticket amount for such booking shall be forfeited by the company. The customers are however, entitled to a refund of the Government and airport fees and /or taxes (if applicable).
“8.3- failure to complaint- Indigo will not be liable to the customer or any loss or expense incurred due to their failure to comply with the provisions of this article”. So, the contention of the opposite party is that complainant was obligated to report to the boarding gate not later than the time specified by indigo during check in or through any subsequent announcement made at the airport and in any case 25 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time of the flight. In this complaint the complainant did not report at the boarding gate before the closure of the same. Hence as per Indigo conditions of carriage the complainant and co passengers were treated as’ Gate No Show ‘and was constrained to deny boarding to the complainant. The obligation of the complainant does not complete at the stage of check – in and availing boarding pass but obligations would continue after check in and on board the aircraft. So, the contention of the opposite party is that the incident is self-induced trouble and even then, the opposite party offered re accommodation to the complainant and his accompanying passengers on the next available flight. The complainant and co passengers successfully availed the service of the opposite party and they continued their journey on 13/03/2017 on payment of 13506/- after adjusting the amount paid against the first booking.
The complainant has no case that the scheduled flight was not operated on that particular day. The complainant submitted in complaint that the flight left 5 minutes prior to the scheduled time. At the same time, it can be seen that the complainant and co passengers availed boarding pass sufficiently before the departure time of the flight. The contention of the complainant is that the opposite party is having telephone details of the complainant and they could have informed the complainant by telephone and then the incident could have avoided. It is also submitted that the baggage’s were being already loaded to the flight it was sure that passengers are there in the airport. But the officials of the opposite party did not consider the same and so the passengers suffered much grievance in the journey.
The version of the opposite party is that it is the duty of the passenger as per terms and conditions of the Indigo conditions carriage – domestic. The complainant has to report at the boarding gate. It is to be noted that intimating each and every passenger to report at boarding gate individually is well and good, if possible. In this case admittedly there is no as such steps has taken by the opposite party. But it cannot be treated as deficiency in service as provided under the Act since particular mode of communication was not stipulated by complainant and opposite party while availing air tickets. There is no dispute regarding operation of flight on that day. But The complaint and co-passengers failed to report at the boarding gate in time. In the absence of sufficient evidence to establish the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party we are not inclined to allow the complainant as prayed. Hence this complaint is dismissed.
