DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.02/2012
Ranjan Mohanty
R/o 35-A, DDA Flats,
Taimur Nagar,
New Delhi-110025 ….Complainant
Versus
Interglobe Aviation Ltd. (Indigo Flights)
IGI, Terminal-1, Delhi Airport,
Delhi
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 03.01.2012
Date of Order : 20.12.2021
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against Airport Manager, (Interglobe Aviation Ltd.) which owns and operates Indigo Airlines. Through the present complaint the complainant have claimed compensation on account of delay in reaching Delhi and for which they suffered loss of salary which was assessed as Rs.9625/- for complainant,
Rs.4140/- for his wife and taxi fare of Rs.2000/-.The complainant has claimed this amount which comes to Rs.21363/- besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
The facts which led to the filing of this complaint are that the complainant and his wife had booked tickets from Delhi to Bhubhneshwar for 19.03.2011 and return flight from Bhubhneshwar to Delhi for 27.03.2011 through Indigo flights. The return flight was to depart from Bhuvneshwar at 07.20 PM and the complainants reached the airport at 6.20 AM but were denied boarding pass by the OP as allegedly, they were late in reporting. It is alleged by the complainant that the OP refused boarding pass as "Pax reported at 18:30 Hours". The complainant then bought tickets for 29.03.2021 by paying additional charges of Rs. 5598/- for himself and his wife.
OP in his reply has stated that flight time was changed from 7:20 PM to 6:55 PM and complainant was informed about the change in timings telephonically at 19:46 hrs on 17.03.2011 i.e. about 10 days before the scheduled departure date. In this regard the OP has filed the true copy of the screenshot of the Sales Support Information Management System pertaining to the complainant’s PNR evidencing that the customer care agent having ID No. ‘XXXWT’ duly informed the Complainant about the change in the scheduled departure time of the said flight. This has been supported by 65 B certificate, however the same does not find mention neither in their reply nor in evidence which is unattested. OP further states that complainant reached @ 6:30 PM on the departure date which was only 25 mins prior to departure time and hence were denied boarding passes. Both the parties have filed their Written Submissions.
Hon’ble NCDRC in Sheela.R.Ohri vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. in FA No. 512/2013 decided on 11.11.2014 have held that As documents did not contain signatures of notary, Learned State Commission instead of dismissing complaint on technical grounds should have afforded opportunity to the Complainant subject to cost for filing another set of affidavit alongwith documents duly signed by notary in the light of aforesaid judgments.
In the light of this judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC, opportunities were provided to the OP to file attested evidence and for that purpose, notice was issued to both the advocates but OP, despite being served, has chosen not to appear. Also, the counsel for the OP was informed telephonically about the case and the unattested affidavit, however no response was forthcoming. In the absence of unattested evidence, the evidence cannot be considered which in any case does not mention the call being made to the complainant.
In the light of the facts, the version of the complainants is accepted and therefore the OPs are directed to pay to the complainants Rs. 21363/- on account of loss suffered by them and Rs. 7500/- as compensation within a period of two months from today failing which the OPs are liable to pay Rs. 7,500/- additionally to the complainant.
File be consigned to the record room after giving/sending copies of the order to the parties. The office is directed to upload the order on the website
