By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Complaint in short is as follows:-
1. The complainant subscribed one air ticket from Chennai to Kozhikode in Indigo Airlines 6E-7127 with booking Id: NF 211122234633 for his journey on 17/08/2019 on payment of Rs.5,115/-. His e- ticket was confirmed with PNR No.YGS 89M. The scheduled departure of the flight from the terminal No.13 of Chennai International Airport was at 4.30 hours on 17/08/2019 and the expected arrival was at 6.30 hours in Calicut International airport on the same day. As per the terms in the ticket the complainant reported at the counter managed by the opposite party at Chennai airport on 17/08/2019 well in advance and obtained boarding pass at 3.45 hours for his journey in the flight scheduled to be at 4.30 hours to Kozhikode. Thereafter he went to toilet for refreshment and within 10 minutes at 3.55 hours he, reported at gate No.13 where the officials of the opposite party were standing. But when the complainant shown his boarding pass to the officials of the opposite party they denied the entry stating that the entry is closed at 3.50 hours. The complainant submitted that he was not informed the change in the scheduled departure or there was no announcement or messages. The opposite party has not even bothered to announce the name of the missing passenger or send an alert message to the phone after issuance of boarding pass to the passenger.
2. When the complainant approached the officials of the opposite party at gate No.13 the flight was seen standing at the runway and loading luggage and baggage. When the complainant pressed for boarding, the officials of the opposite party under the pretext to meet the airport authority, taken the complainant to a counter and get his boarding pass and meantime one of the officials of the opposite party scribbled on the boarding pass with his pen and returned to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant was thrown out to the airport and he was forced to pay an amount of Rs.3,208/- and managed to get a confirmed ticket to Kochi at the next flight operated by the opposite party “Indigo air lines 6E -298”. The said flight reached at Kochi International airport on the same day at 7.25 hours.
3. The complainant is a business man and native of Manjeri in Malappuram District near to the Kozhikode airport. Due to latches, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant forced to pay an additional amount of Rs. 3,208/-. The complainant also sustained an amount of Rs.5,000/- by way of taxi fare from Nedumbasseri to Manjeri, i.e., 150-kilometer distance. The complainant suffered much mental pain and agony in addition to the financial loss.
4. Thereafter complainant caused a registered lawyer notice to the opposite party on 30/09/2019, even though the opposite party received notice, the opposite party send reply notice after long time with untenable contentions. The opposite party requested in the reply notice to provide the PNR number of the ticket on board IndiGo flight No.6E 7129 and accordingly complainant send PNR number and also photo copy of the boarding pass etc. But the opposite party did not inclined to respond positively or to redress the grievances of the complainant. The entire attempt of the complainant was fell in deaf ears and were found not in avail. The complainant alleges that there is fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the manner of performance of service which has been undertaking to be performed by the opposite party in pursuance of contract, which amounts deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.
5. Hence the complainant prayed to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,115/-, the ticket fare to Kochi, Rs.5,000/- as taxi fare from Kochi to Manjeri, compensation of rupees 100000/-, altogether Rs.1,35,115/- to the complainant.
6. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and on receipt of notice the opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the entire averments and allegations contained in the complaint.
7. The opposite party submitted that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non–joinder of necessary parties. The opposite party submitted that they under takes airline operations domestically in India as well as to certain International destinations, is registered under the co-operate name of Inter Globe Aviation Limited. But the present complaint has been filed against. “The Managing Director, Inter Globe Aviation Limited Central Wing Ground Floor Thapar house 124 Jana path New Delhi 1100001”, which is not correct. The opposite party also contended that the booking under dispute was made through a third party travel agent namely, Make My Trip India Pvt Ltd. and the No Show taxes amounting Rs.81/- was duly refunded to the account from which the booking was originally made and that was done on 10/09/2020 itself .
8. The opposite party submitted that Inter Globe Aviation Limited has acted strictly in accordance with the applicable law and the binding terms of indigo conditions carriage domestic. The submission of the opposite party is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in accordance with section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The attempt of the complainant is a gross abuse of the processes of the law and the intention of the complainant is to embroil a reputed airline operator in frivolous and vexatious litigation and thereby stifle fair and un interrupted operations carried out by InterGlobe aviation limited. The object of the complainant is to extract money illegally on misconceived and fallacious grounds.
9. The opposite party also contended that the commission doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear the present complaint, since the terms and conditions stipulate that the courts of New Delhi shall settle all disputes arising out of or inception with the conditions of carriage. More over the commission have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the alleged cause of action has arisen not within the territorial jurisdiction of this commission. The booking in question was for the sector Chennai to Kozhikode and thus, no cause of action arisen at Malappuram .
10. The opposite party also submitted that as per the terms and conditions the stipulated boarding deadline for the indigo flight No.6E 127 was 04.05 hours, 25 minutes before the scheduled time of departure of the indigo flight being 04.30 hours. The complainant herein failed to reach the boarding gate for the indigo flight i.e., gate No.13 of the Chennai airport by 04.05 hours, which was the mandated boarding time line. The complainant reported at the boarding gate only after closure time, at 0412 hours i.e., only 18 minute before the scheduled departure time of the indigo flight instead of the mandated 25 minutes prior. The opposite party submit that the complainant was aware of fact that the boarding gate shall close 25 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time of the indigo flight, since the same was duly informed to the complainant at the time of check–in by the staff of interGlobe aviation limited by way of boarding pass admittedly issued to him, by way of SMS dated 17/08/2019 send at 03.29 hours and by way of the binding terms of the contract of carriage i.e., the indigo CoC which was duly accepted by him before the booking could be accepted and processed. It is also mentioned that there was information in the boarding pass that “boarding gates closes 25 minutes prior to the scheduled time of departure”. The opposite party submit that the Chennai airport is a silent airport and no announcement are made except for boarding gate information SMS sent on the registered mobile number of the passengers provided at the time of booking and in this case, it is 9895554499 and also through manual boarding calls for passengers seated around the boarding gate. But the complainant failed to respond to the manual boarding calls made by the staff of the opposite party around the boarding gate No.13 around 0405 hours and the complainant arrived at the boarding gate only at 0412 hours by which time the boarding gate had closed.
11. Despite have no obligation to do so and purely as a good will gesture inter Globe aviation limited promptly offered the option of re-accommodation in the next available flight to the destination of the complainant choice. But the complainant refused to avail the re -accommodation option on board an alternative flight to his destination for reasons best known to him. The complainant booked another fresh ticket from Chennai to Kochi on board Inidigo flight No.6E 298 for 17/08/2019 and the booking was confirmed under PNR Number CLF13X. The complainant travelled on board indigo flight No.298, utilizing the services of InterGlobe aviation limited. The specific contention of the opposite party is that the failure of the complainant to report at the boarding gate for boarding for the IndiGo flight within the stipulated boarding dead line shall result in forfeiture of the booking amount except for the “No Show Taxes “.
12. The opposite party also contended that airlines cannot maintain their tight flight schedules and perform their larger duty of responsibility and care owed to other passengers who have reported on time, if they are obliged to wait for each and every passenger even after the prescribed time limit for boarding. In order to trace the no show passenger, the staff of interGlob aviation limited made manual announcement at the boarding gate area. The passengers who were in compliance with all the applicable loss and, who had reported within in the mandated check-in and boarding timelines, successfully boarded the indiGo flight flew to their destination. InterGlobe aviation limited cannot accept passengers after closure of the boarding gate, on account of operational circumstances and exigencies such as amendment of load sheet, change in head count, adherence to on-time performance and least inconvenience to passengers who adhered to the check in and boarding time lines etc. There is no reason to deny boarding to a passenger who is in compliance with all applicable laws and has reported to the check-in counter and boarding gate from the side of InterGlob aviation limited. The opposite party contended that the Hon’ble supreme court as well as Consumer Disputes Redressal agencies considered these issues and found in favor of the opposite party.
13. In short, the complainant herein attempt to mislead the commission to pursue baseless claims without an authorization to that effect which is complete contravention of the applicable law and the binding terms of the contract and so the submission is that the complaint is not maintainable, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged, not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as claimed and so the complaint is misconceived and liable to be dismissed with cost.
14. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A7. Ext. A1 is e- ticket issued by opposite party to the complainant from Chennai to Calicut dated 17/08/2019. Ext. A2 is boarding pass issued by opposite party to the complainant from Chennai to Calicut dated 17/08/2019. Ext. A3 is e- ticket issued by opposite party to complainant from Chennai to Kochi dated 17/08/2019. Ext. A4 is boarding pass issued by opposite party to complainant from Chennai to Kochi dated 17/08/2019. Ext. A5 is lawyer notice issued by Adv. Asif Iqbal to the opposite party with postal receipts dated 30/09/2019. Ext. A6 is reply notice by Adv. Asif Iqbal to Adv. Shantanu Verma with postal receipts. Ext. A7 is reply notice issued by Shantanu Verma to Adv. Hasif Iqubal. Opposite party documents marked as Ext. B1 to B9. Ext. B1 is authorization letter dated 30/08/2018. Ext. B2 is copy of certificate of incorporation of InterGlob Aviation limited dated 11/08/2006. Ext. B3 is terms and conditions applicable to Indigo CoC. Ext.B4 is true copy of the screen shot of the official record of Inter Glob Aviation limited evidencing the booking under PNR number YGS 89M. Ext. B5 is true copy of screen shot of the official record of InterGlob Aviation Limited evidencing the web- check –in on 16/08/2019 and airport check in time on 17/08/2019 under PNR number YGS 89M. Ext B6 is true copy of screen shot of the official record of interglob aviation limited evidencing the SMS dated 17/08/2019 send at 0329 hours. Ext. B7 is true copy of screen shot of the official record of InterGlob Aviation limited evidencing the checkout time and baggage status. Ext. B8 is copy of screen shot of the official record of InterGlob Aviation limited evidencing refund of No-Show taxes on 10/09/2019. Ext. B9 is copy of judgment of the Hon’ble supreme court of India in civil appeal numbers 778, 779/2020.
15. Heard complainant and opposite party, perused affidavit and documents.
The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether the commission has got jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Relief and cost?
16. Point No.1
The opposite party challenged the jurisdiction of this Commission stating that the cause of action has arisen not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and as per the terms and conditions between the complainant and opposite party, there is a condition that the courts of New Delhi shall settle all disputes arising out of or inception with the conditions of carriage. The complaint herein filed under Consumer Protection Act 2019 which provides the territorial jurisdiction as per section 34 (2) (d) where the complainant resides or personally works for gain. It is also be noted the complainant booked the air ticket through online application. The complainant residing within the jurisdiction of this Commission and so, we do not find merit in the contention of the opposite party regarding the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, we answer the first point accordingly.
17. Point No.2
The grievance of the complainant is that he had booked air ticket of the opposite party using make my trip India Pvt Limited application to travel on 17/08/2019 from Chennai to Calicut. The scheduled departure of the flight from the Chennai International airport was at about 0430 hours on 17/08/2019 and expected arrival was 0630 hours in Calicut International airport on the same day. The complainant on 17/08/2019 reported at check in counter, Chennai managed by the opposite party well in advance and obtained boarding pass at 0345 hours for his journey to the flight scheduled to be at 0430 hours to Kozhikode. There after he went to the toilet for refreshment and within 10 minutes at 3.55 hours, he reported at gat No.13 where the officials of the opposite party were standing. When the complainant shown his boarding pass to the officials of the opposite party, they denied the entry stating that the entry closed at 0350 hours. The complainant submitted that the complainant was not informed the change in the scheduled departure and there was no announcement or messages. Complainant alleges the opposite party has not even bothered to announce the name of the missing passenger or sent an alert message to the phone after issuance of boarding pass to the passenger. The complainant approached the official of the opposite party at gate number 13 and at that time the flight was seen standing at the runway and loading luggages and bagages. The complainant pressed for boarding but the official of the opposite party under the pretext to meet the airport authority taken the complainant to a counter and get his boarding pass. But mean time one of the official of the opposite party scribbled on the boarding pass with his pen and returned to the complainant. The complainant was thrown out the airport and was forced to pay an amount of Rs.3,208/- and managed to get a confirmed ticket to Kochi at the next flight operated by the opposite party “Indigo airlines 6 E 298”. So it can be seen that the case of complainant is that he reported at the gate number 13 at about 3.55 hours. But he came to know the entry was closed at 0350 hours itself. The complainant alleges that there was no information regarding the change in the scheduled departure and there was no alert message to the phone after issuance of boarding pass to the passenger.
18. The definite case of the opposite party is that despite SMS dated 17/08/2019 at about 0332 hours informing the complainant of the boarding gate number and the boarding time line the complainant failed to respond to the manual boarding calls made by staff of the Inter Glob Aviation limited around the boarding gate No.13 around 04.05 hours and the complainant arrived at the boarding gate only at 0412 hours by which time the boarding gate had closed. So due to failure on the part of complainant to report at the boarding gate for boarding for the Indigo Flight within the stipulated boarding dead line shall result in forfeiture of the booking amount except for the “No show Taxes ‘which are liable to be refunded in this complaint an amount of Rs.81/- duly refunded to the account through which booking was originally made i.e. the account of the third party travel agent.
19. The pleading of the complainant is that he was issued boarding pass at about 0345 hours and later he reported at boarding gate at about 0355 hours. The deadline for reporting at boarding gate as per document is hours . So it can be seen that the case of complainant is that he reported at boarding gate 10 minutes before the dead line. The contention of complainant is that while he reported at boarding gate by 0355 hours he was informed that the boarding gate was closed by 0350. The opposite party contended that the complainant reported at boarding gate at about 0412 hours. So as per the contention of the opposite party the complainant reported at boarding gate after seven minutes of the deadline prescribed for reporting at boarding gate. The complainant also contended in the complaint that when he approached the officials of the opposite party at gate number 13, the flight was seen standing at the runway and loading luggages and bagages. When he pressed for boarding the officials of the opposite party under the pretext to meet the airport authority taken the complainant to a counter and get his boarding pass and mean time one of the officials of the opposite party scribbled on the boarding pass with his pen and returned to the complainant. The document Ext. A2 is the said scribbled boarding pass. Now the question is whether he reported at the boarding gate as contended by the complainant at 0355 hours or as contended by the opposite party at 0412 hours. Ext.A2, the boarding pass shows that it is a scribbled boarding pass as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party has not specifically denied the allegation of the complainant about scribbling over boarding pass. The opposite party could have noted the exact time when the complainant reported at the opposite party with the boarding pass instead scrabbling on the boarding pass. The opposite party has not produced any document to show that he was reported only at about 0412 hours. There is no dispute regarding the departure time of the flight as well as deadline of reporting at boarding gate i.e., before 25 minutes of departure time. The documents produced by the both parties reveal the same. The complainant has got sufficient knowledge of the time stipulations. He was reported and obtained boarding pass by 0345 hours which is right time. The complainant knows he has to report at boarding gate at about 0405 hours. The complainant submitted that after obtaining boarding pass he went to toilet for refreshment and within 10 minutes at 3.55 hours he reported at gate no 13 where the officials of the opposite party were standing. So it is not proper to hold that complainant consumed much time for refreshment and delayed to report at the boarding gate. It is to be noted that the timing of flight is early morning and the complainant prepared for reporting at airport as well as before the opposite party with abundant care and caution. But the opposite party officials closed the boarding gate 15 minutes prior to stipulated time schedule. There is no document to show that the complainant was informed about the closing of boarding gate in advance. The opposite party has a contention the Chennai airport is silent airport and so announcement is not possible. Even then the opposite party side made manual announcement for which the opposite party did not respond. But it can be seen that the opposite party was bound to remain open the boarding gate till 0405 hours as per the document. Hence we find that the opposite party closed boarding gate 15 minutes prior to the stipulated time which resulted the unfortunate miseries to the complainant. So we hold that there is defective service on the side of opposite party as laid down by the Consumer Protection Act, we find the second point accordingly.
20. The opposite party produced a reportable decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal numbers 778-779/2020 i.e. the manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkatta and another Vs Kalpana Rani Debbarama and others. The Hon’ble Apex court discussed the matter in detail in the matter of “Gate no show issue”. The decision elaborately discussed the responsibility of the Airline operators and the passengers at the airport. The finding in the matter of the Apex court was the passengers bound to take responsibility to ensure that they were present themselves at the boarding gate before the scheduled time. But it is not the issue in the present matter before this commission. In this matter the complainant / passenger reported the boarding gate before 10 minutes of closing the boarding gate i.e.0405 hours. The opposite party submitted that the complainant was reported only at 0412 hours. So we hold that in this case the complainant reported 10 minutes earlier to the time fixed to close the boarding gate and so this is a case of closing boarding gate before the stipulated time. Hence we do not find the decision produced by the opposite party is applicable in this complaint. The opposite party has not specifically stated at what time the boarding gate was really closed.
21. Point No.3
The complainant was denied boarding by the opposite party and thereby he was forced to get a confirmed ticket to Kochi in the next flight operated by the opposite party Indigo airlines 6 E298 by making payment of Rs.3,208/-. The original ticket was from Chennai to Calicut and subsequent flight ticket was from Chennai to Kochi. So the complainant had to travel to Calicut airport by availing special conveyance which is 150 kilometers away from Cochin Airport. No doubt the experience resulted much hardship and inconvenience as well as financial loss to the complainant. Considering the entire aspects and documents we direct the opposite party to refund the ticket fare 5115 to the complainant. The complaint is entitled to get Rs.5,000/- on account of traveling expense from Cochin airport to his native place. The complainant is entitled for a reasonable amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
In the light of above facts and circumstance we allow this complaint as follows:
- The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.5,115/-, the ticket fare to the complainant.
2) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of additional travelling expenses incurred by the complainant due to the defective service of the opposite party.
3) The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on
account of defective service on the part of the opposite party and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party is directed comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the entire above amount will carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Dated this 27th day of September, 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A7
Ext.A1: e- ticker issued by opposite party to the complainant from Chennai to Calicut
dated 17/08/2019.
Ext.A2: Boarding pass issued by opposite party to the complainant from Chennai to
Calicut dated 17/08/2019.
Ext A3: e ticket issued by opposite party to complainant from Chennai to Kochi dated
17/08/2019.
Ext A4: Boarding pass issued by opposite party to complainant from Chennai to Kochi
dated 17/08/2019.
Ext A5: Lawyer notice issued by Adv. Asif Iqbal to the opposite party with postal
receipts dated 30/09/2019.
Ext.A6: Reply notice by Adv. Asif Iqbal to Adv. Shantanu Verma with postal receipts.
Ext.A7: Reply notice issued by Shantanu Verma to Adv. Hasif Iqubal.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to 9
Ext.B1: Authorization letter dated 30/08/2018.
Ext.B2: Copy of certificate of incorporation of InterGlob Aviation limited dated
11/08/2006.
Ext.B3: Terms and conditions applicable to Indigo CoC.
Ext.B4: True copy of the screen shot of the official record of Inter Glob Aviation
limited evidencing the booking under PNR number YGS 89M. Ext. B5 is true
copy of screen shot of the official record of InterGlob Aviation Limited evidencing the web- check –in on 16/08/2019 and airport check in time on 17/08/2019 under PNR number YGS 89M.
Ext.B5: True copy of screen shot of the official record of InterGlob Aviation Limited
evidencing the web- check –in on 16/08/2019 and airport check in time on
17/08/2019 under PNR number YGS 89M.
Ext.B6: True copy of screen shot of the official record of interglob aviation limited
evidencing the SMS dated 17/08/2019 send at 0329 hours.
Ext.B7: true copy of screen shot of the official record of InterGlob Aviation limited
evidencing the checkout time and baggage status.
Ext.B8: Copy of screen shot of the official record of InterGlob Aviation limited
evidencing refund of No Show taxes on 10/09/2019.
ExtB9: Copy of judgment of the Hon’ble supreme court of India in civil appeal
numbers 778, 779/2020.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
VPH Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
