Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/66

Sri Utpal Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jet Airways India Limited and others. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

01 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO: CC- 66 of 2014

 

Sri Utpal Das,

S/O- Sri Umapada Das,

Ramnagar Road No.1,

Agartala, West Tripura. ............Complainant.

 

______VERSUS______

 

1. 1. Jet Airways (India) Limited,

   Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road,

   Andheri (East), Mumbai,

   Maharashtra-400099.

    

   2. Station Manager,

   Jet Airways,

   Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose

   International Airport,

   Kolkata- 700052.

 

3. Station Manager,

Jet Airways,

Agartala Airport,

Agartala, West Tripura. ..…..Opposite Parties.

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

SRI S. C. SAHA

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Karnajit De,

Rajib Saha,

Ranagopal Chakraborty and

Anjan Debnath,

Advocates.

 

For the Opposite Parties : Pranabashis Majumdar,

Advocate.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : - 01.07.15

 

J U D G M E N T

 

This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (herein after refer to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Utpal Das of Ramnagar Road No-1, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.P, Jet Airways India Ltd., over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.P.

 

2. The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant booked E-ticket through the local travel agent on 22.08.13 for travelling from Delhi to Kolkata by Jet Airways Flight No- 9W 7105 and Kolkata to Agartala by connecting Flight No- 9W 2619 on 25.08.13. On his arrival at New Delhi Airport on the date of journey he was allotted two boarding passes- one for his journey from Delhi to Kolkata and another for Kolkata to Agartala. After landing of the flight at Kolkata Airport it was informed by the cabin crew that the passengers who would travel to Agartala by Jet Airways flight No- 9W 2619 should make contact with the ground staff for assistance. Surprisingly enough, no ground staff of the Jet airways came forward to extend any help. Due to late arrival of the flight from Delhi to Kolkata he was running out of time for boarding the Agartala bound Jet Airways flight. Finding no other alternative, he went to the terminal and passed through the security-check. He reached the boarding gate no- 25 to avail the flight but the ground staff of the Jet Airways did not allow him to board the flight on the ground of his late arrival at the boarding gate though at that time the boarding gate was not closed. Inspite of his repeated requests, the ground staff did not allow him to board the flight and behaved with him unmannerly. The complainant then returned to Agartala from Kolkata making alternative arrangement in Spicejet Flight No- SG 871 by purchasing fresh ticket for Rs.3247/-. According to the complainant, the O.P. Airlines was guilty of negligence and deficient in rendering service. Hence, this complaint.

 

3. The complaint was contested by the O.P. Airlines stating, interalia, that all the passengers on board of flight No- 9W 7105 were informed by repeated announcements made inside the flight that the passengers who would travel to Agartala by Flight No- 9W 2619 should meet the ground staff on arrival at Kolkata Airport in order to avail themselves of their flight to Agartala. There were 13 passengers, including the complainant, in a group who were connected from Flight No. 9W 7105 on to Flight No- 9W 2619. Accordingly, a ramp to ramp transfer was done for all the 12 passengers save and except the complainant since he did not contact the ground staff. The complainant went back to the terminal and passed through the security-check and then reached the boarding gate. By the time the boarding process was already completed. Hence, the complainant could not be accommodated to the said flight. From the list of transit and off-loaded passengers it would go to show that all the 12 connecting passengers availed themselves of the flight No- 9W 2619 without facing any difficulty. The complainant could not avail the Agartala bound Jet Airways flight on account of his own fault. The O.P. airlines was not at all responsible for his failure to get the flight in question. It is denied that the O.P. Airlines was deficient in rendering service in any manner what so ever.

 

4. In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:

Exhibit 1- E-ticket dated 22.08.13,

Exhibit 2- Series- Boarding passes of Flight Nos- 9W 7105 and 9W 2619 dated 25.08.13,

Exhibit 3- Flight ticket dated 25.08.13,

Exhibit 4-Boarding pass of Flight No- SG 871 dated 25.08.13.

 

5. On the other hand, one Sri Hrianya Ranjan Borah, Deputy Manager of O.P. Airlines, has examined himself as O.P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the list of transit and off-loaded passengers dated 25.08.13 of Flight No- 9W 2619 as Exhibit – A Series.

FINDINGS:

6. The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are:

(i) Whether the complainant failed to avail himself of Agartala bound Jet Airways Flight No- 9W 2619 on 25.08.13 due to the negligence of the O.P. Airlines;

(ii) Whether the O.P.-Airlines was deficient in rendering service to the complainant. If so, whether the complainant is liable to be duly compensated by the O.P.-Airlines.

 

7. We have already heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the pleadings, documents on record, evidence adduced by the parties and the memorandum of written argument filed by the complainant meticulously.

 

8. On verification of the list of transit and off-loaded passengers dated 25.08.13 of Flight No- 9W 2619(Exhibit A series) it is found that all the 12 passengers excepting the complainant boarded the connected Flight No- 9W 2619 by way of ramp to ramp transfer. As it appears, the complainant is none other else than a practicing lawyer. Hence there was no reason for him to face any difficulty in getting into the connected flight when the 12 fellow passengers did not experience any problem. Probably the unfortunate event had taken place due to misconception of the complainant which drove him to the domestic terminal of Kolkata Airport without boarding the Flight No. 9W 2619 directly and again passed through the security check. In this process, delay might have caused in reaching the boarding gate. As per rule, a passenger is to arrive at the boarding gate 25 minutes before departure of the flight. As a matter of right a passenger can not demand for allowing him to board the flight if he does not report to the staff of boarding gate 25 minutes before departure of the flight. The complainant strongly asserted that he was not allowed to board the flight by the ground staff of the O.P.-Airlines though he reached the boarding gate 25 minutes before departure of the flight. The complainant has not led any cogent and creditable evidence in support of the above contention. During the pendency of the proceeding, he could have urged the Forum to issue direction to the O.P.-Airlines to arrange for production of CC TV footage of the boarding gate No- 25 of Kolkata Airport of the relevant date and time to justify the plea of his timely arrival at the boarding gate. But nothing of this sort was done.

 

9. From the materials on record it is clear that there were 12 other connecting passengers in the Flight No- 9W 7105 for travelling to Agartala by Flight No- 9W 2619. The complainant could have examined any of the fellow passengers as a witness in support of his allegation that the ground staff of the O.P. Airlines did not render any assistance in taking them to Agartala bound flight No- 9W 2619. The passengers list of flight No- 9W 2619 produced by the O.P.-Airlines clearly indicates that on 25.08.13 the said flight was not full of passengers. In such a situation, there was no reason for the O.P.-Airlines to deprive the complainant, who was a confirmed passenger, of boarding the flight in question had he arrived at the boarding gate within the stipulated time.

10. In view of the discussion made above, we hold that the complainant has failed to establish by cogent and creditable evidence that the O.P. Airlines was deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

 

11. In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant stands dismissed being devoid of merit. However, we make no order as to costs.

1. 100.  

        12. A N N O U N C E D

 

 

 

SRI S. C. SAHA

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

 

SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.