Indira Gandhi International Airport,
M/s.GMR Infrastructure Limited,
New Udaan Bhawan,
Opposite to Terminal 3, New Delhi 110 037.
5.M/s.IXIGO.Com,
2nd Floor, Veritas Building,
Behind Ibis Hotel, Sector 53,
Golf Course Road, Gurgaon 122 002. ..........Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.
Counsel for the 1st & 2nd opposite parties : M/s.NGR Prasad, Advocate.
Counsel for the 3rd opposite party : Mr.S.Sushil Kumar, Advocate.
Counsel for the 4th & 5th opposite parties : Exparte.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 10.07.2023 in the presence of Mr.A.R.Poovannan, counsel for the complainant and M/s.NGR Prasad counsel for the opposite parties 1 &2 and Mr.S.Sushil Kumar counsel for the 3rd opposite party and 4th & 5th opposite parties set exparte and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in treating him in an inhuman manner and preventing him from boarding the flight to Chicago, Illinois, USA on 27.06.2021 from New Delhi, Indira Gandhi International Airport, along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.41,133/- the travel cost paid by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The crux of the complaint was that the complainant purchased an Air travel ticket through online Air travel ticket booking domain Corporate/the 5th opposite party for his travel on 27.06.2021 from New Delhi, Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI) to O’Hare International Airport (ORD) at Chicago, Illinois, USA. The cost of the ticket was Rs.41,133/-. The complainant a student was holding “F-1” Status of Visa issued by the US Government for Academic and Language. If a passenger possess F-1 Status of Visa and present it at the boarding pass counter he would be eligible to carry 3 check-in luggages of 23kgs apart from 1 cabin luggage. This was a special category treatment given to the students traveling to USA on their study visa by Air India as all the usual passengers can take only two hand luggages of 23kgs and one cabin luggage with them. But the staff, at the boarding pass counter was not aware of this special offer. On 27.07.2021 the complainant checked into the IGI Airport, New Delhi well in time. The ticketing counter personnel treated the complainant in an inhuman manner and unnecessarily posted many personal questions which are not relevant and required at that point of time. The complainant had shown his visa papers to the staff i.e. F-1 Visa “i-20, Certificate for Eligibility for non immigrant student status OMB No.1653-0038” and claimed for one more extra check-in bag. But he was refused to provide boarding pass and he was dodged at the counter by stating flimsy reasons, such as he does not have proper travel document with him. The travel documents to travel to International destination requires Visa, Passport and Embassy Stamping over it, Proper and valid Air Ticket to travel, Luggages that does not have any contagious and contraband articles cleared by security checks, other than this due to this present scenario of global pandemic, RT-PCR test report taken within 72 hours of travel. Though the complainant had produced all these to the counter-staff, the staff concerned first refuted with Visa papers and repeatedly rejected the same and had stated that the document was not an appropriate one. As complainant stated that it was the visa he obtained from Department of Homeland Security, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and it was authenticated document, still the concerned staff was not satisfied and complainant was asked to submit an affidavit/Statement –A form/Format. In the complainant’s case, the counter staff had took that disclaimer affidavit from the complainant. The complainant requests the opposite party to preserve. Further, after signing the above said disclaimer/affidavit form, the complainant was not allowed to weigh his luggage and he was asked to wait separately as the counter staff started clearing others in the queue. The ticketing counter staff repeatedly questioned the complainant with the passport, RT-PCR Test results and all other authenticated documents for air travels which was produced by the complainant multiple times. Finally, the complainant was stopped from traveling to his Chicago, Illinois destination as the flight left without boarding him. Just 10 minutes before the scheduled departure time of his flight at 02.45 hours the security staff foul played and asked to pack all his materials that were spread all over across the security table quickly. The complainant in fact replied politely that the possibility become remote/impossible as was not given boarding pass for his travel. The airline staff not only ditched the complainant and stopped him from boarding the flight but also pull all blame on the complainant. In addition to the missed flight, the airline officials pushed the complainant forcefully out of the airport, treated him as an animal, to obey to their orders. He was also denied adjustment to any direct or connecting flights to Chicago on 27th July or afterwards. On 27.07.2021 at evening 16.00 hours the complainant had presented his case to the Home Station Officer, Airport Police Station at Terminal 3 and lodged a complaint against the AI authorities as he was given an allegation sheet by the AI authorities by that time which stated utterly baseless lies in sequence. The complainant denied all such untrue charges against him and also he was given complaint to the airport police station about the cheating of AI staff by denying his possible and valid air travel though he paid for it. Subsequently a police officer escorted with the complainant, who was intended to find facts behind the complainant’s complaint went to the CCTV footage room and had a view on all the sequence. The complainant also requested the opposite party to provide a copy of the same. The complainant had received an email dated 03.08.2021 written by one Mr.DeepikaMathur, who was the Assistant Manager has put all allegations once again on the complainant but all allegations were baseless. Therefore the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 04.08.2021. The complainant submits that the opposite party inspite of receipt of the legal notice had not chosen to admit the complainant’s demand. The act of the opposite parties amount to gross deficiency in their service. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.41,133/- the travel cost paid by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties 1 & 2:-
The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the Airlines was not aware of the purpose of the Complainant's travel from Delhi to Chicago. Admittedly, the Complainant booked his tickets through a private travel agent i.e. 5th opposite party. The Complainant had paid the money only to the travel agent and not to the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties directly. Entire issue of not allowing the Complainant to board the scheduled flight was due to the non- compliance of the Complainant to comply with the essential requirement of presenting a valid negative RT-PCR report as per the guidelines issued by the USA Government. All the operations of international flights are safe, secure and convenient for all its passengers. Travel advisories were issued by different countries in view of the COVID-19 pandemic which were to be mandatorily complied with by the Airlines throughout the world. There were regulations issued by USA that had to be strictly followed and, if they are not followed, the ultimate liability falls on the Airlines. Complainant had booked his ticket for his journey from Delhi to Chicago and if at all he could maintain a claim he can file complaint only at Delhi. Complainant had booked for the flight AI 127 leaving on 27.07.2022 at 02.45am from New Delhi to Chicago. He reported at the airport on time. Since he was holding a student visa, according to the baggage rules he was entitled to carry check-in 3 baggage weighing 23kgs each plus cabin luggage of 8kgs whereas, he was carrying 28 kilos each and a hand luggage of 16 kilos. He did not also have a valid RT-PCR report which was very important and the US Authorities would not allow him to enter without the same. Complainant refused to pay for the extra luggage but he was willing to reduce his baggage. At that time, boarding had started and a boarding card was also issued in his name. However, he was not allowed to board the flight as he did not have a valid RT-PCR report which was essential for travel. For the 1st time, the Complainant in his type-set of documents had produced a RT-PCR report which was subject to proof. The Complainant has not produced any details or documents about the officials who according to him acted rude. He was making all these allegations because the Opposite Party staff insisted on his producing a valid RT-PCR report which was mandatory. It was reiterated that the concerned staff were only performing their duty and had no reason or intention to cause any inconvenience to the Complainant. The allegations are only an afterthought. The default is entirely attributable to the Complainant and no liability accrues from the said incident against the Opposite Party Airlines. The permission to board the scheduled flight was under the governance of the travel advisory issued by the USA Government and the Opposite Party Airlines has no say in it. The decision of not allowing the Complainant to board the flight flowed from his negligence in not following the due instructions regarding international travel issued by the USA. Since the Complainant booked his ticket with the 5th Opposite Party travel agent, the details of refund are purely within their knowledge and thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
The crux of the defence put forth by the 3rd opposite party:-
Disputing the complaint allegations the 3rd opposite party filed written version contending interalia that the Complaint against the 3rd opposite party was not maintainable in law and on facts. The 3rd opposite party was an unnecessary party to the present proceedings. As per the document submitted by the complainant the boarding time was 02.20am. Normally check in counter close 90 minutes prior to flight departure and during COVID 19 situation, it was advised to all the passengers to be at the Airport 4 hours prior to departure. As per the documents of complainant he has lodged complaint to Police at IGI Airport only as against the 1st opposite party and there was no allegation against the 3rd opposite party. The complainant has maliciously chosen to implead the 3rd opposite party. DIAL does not interfere in the set of duties, responsibilities and decisions of the airlines, at the airport as both are different entities. DIAL never instructs any airline for cancellation, boarding/de-boarding the flight and it was also the decision of the concerned airlines. Thus an airport operator holds no responsibility in this process. The present issue purely falls under the domain of Air India, from who the complainant had availed services. The process of admission or denial to a passenger is the concern, solely between airlines and the passenger. This opposite party has not play any part in the alleged incident. Entire allegation in the complaint was against the airlines. As per BCAS circular No.33/2003 only Airport Security unit i.e. CISF governed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs have authority to show the CCTC footage and provide the CCTV footage of IGI Airport, subject o permission of Chief Airport Security Officer i.e. DIG-CISF, DIAL does not have such authority or facility to show/provide CCTV footage. In case of denial of boarding, it was only the airline who was responsible for any compensation as per circular dated 06.08.2010 issued by office of the Director General of Civil Aviation. This opposite party was not the Airlines, it was only an Airport Operator and has no role to play in the incident. DIAL was not liable or responsible for the alleged dispute of the complainant and therefore the complaint was sheer abuse of process of this Hon’ble Commission and complaint was bad in law and without any merits and thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.11 was submitted. On the side of 3rd opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 was submitted. On the side of opposite parties 1 & 2 proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B2 and Ex.B6 was submitted. Though the 4th and 5th opposite parties received notice they did not turn up before this Commission and hence they were called absent and set exparte on 20.06.2023 for non appearance and for non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per statute.
Points for consideration:-
- Whether the complaint allegations of deficiency in service against the opposite parties in treating him in an inhuman manner and preventing him from boarding the flight to Chicago, Illinois, USA on 27.06.2021 from New Delhi, Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI), was substantiated and proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
- To what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
On the side of complainant the following documents were filed for proving the complaint allegations;
- F-1 Status of Visa issued by the US Government for Academic and Language dated 30.04.2021 was marked as Ex.A1;
- E-Ticket booked by the complainant dated 27.06.2021 was marked as Ex.A2;
- Covid -19 RT-PCR Report dated 25.07.2021 tag was marked as Ex.A3;
- Complaint by the complainant dated 27.07.2021 was marked as Ex.A4;
- Email reply by the opposite party dated 03.08.2021 was marked as Ex.A5;
- Legal notice issued by the complainant dated 04.08.2021 was marked as Ex.A6;
- Postal tracking receipt was marked as Ex.A7;
- Reply by the opposite party dated 07.08.2021 was marked as Ex.A8;
- Passenger’s complaint registered dated 10.08.2021 was marked as Ex.A9;
- Reply by the opposite party dated 13.09.2021 was marked as Ex.A10;
- Passport book of the complainant was marked as Ex.A11;
On the side of 3rd opposite party the following document was filed for their contentions;
- Copy of Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation dated 06.08.2010 was marked as Ex.B1;
On the side of opposite parties 1 & 2 the following document was filed for their contentions;
- Reply notice dated 07.10.2021 was marked as Ex.B2;
- Copy of Ticket value dated 27.06.2021 was marked as Ex.B3;
- Copy of refund as per fare rules dated 31.07.2021 was marked as Ex.B4;
- Details of recall of penalties and fund refund dated 14.11.2022 was marked as Ex.B5;
- Value of the ticket and refund details was marked as Ex.B6;
The counsel appearing for the complainant represented that the written arguments filed by them may be treated as oral arguments. Hence, this Commission considered the oral arguments made by the opposite parties 1 to 3 and other available pleadings and materials filed by both parties passed the order on merits.
The crux of the complaint is that on 27.06.2021 when the complainant planed to travel to O’Hare International Airport at Chicago, Illinois, USA and reached the Delhi Airport well in advance to the scheduled departure time of 02.45 hours but the Ticket Counter personnel treated the complainant in an inhuman manner unnecessarily posting personal questions. Though the complainant was holding an F-1 Status of Visa issued by the US Government for Academic and Language and was entitled to carry three check-in luggages of 23 kgs apart from one cabin luggage, the staff of the boarding pass counter did not permit the complainant to avail the offer. Though the complainant had shown his visa papers, Passport and embassy stamping over it, a valid ticket, luggage without any contagious or contra brand articles cleared by security check along with an RTPCR Test Report taken within 72 hours of travel, the staff concerned rejected the visa papers and stated that the documents were not an appropriate one. The complainant was forced to provide a disclaimer affidavit. In the meantime, the complainant was not permitted to weigh his luggage and made to wait separately. After clearing all the passengers when the complainant alone was left out to be cleared once again the staff sought for the travel documents and started questioning about extra luggage without even weighing the same. The staff created a scene characterizing the complainant as good for nothing person. The counter staff tagged the baggage of the complainant which symbolizes that he accepted the complainant luggage to be carried into the aircraft. In such a circumstance how that be logically correct for them to claim that the complainant has excess baggage with him and due to that alone he was not allowed to travel on that eventful day. The complainant was made to wait endlessly without even stating any reasons which caused mental stigma and stress to the complainant. When the flight was to depart 10 minutes before, the security staff ordered to pack all the materials of the complainant that where spread over the security table. Thus the staff not only ditched the complainant by stopping him from boarding the flight but also put all the blame on the complainant and pushed him out of the Airport. He was also denied adjustment to any direct or connecting flight to Chicago on 27th July or afterwards which adds to the horrendous and pitiful service provided by the airlines. Thus the complainant could not attend his University as per the instruction of his Professor on 28.07.2021. The complainant on the same day at 16 hours presented his case to the Home Station Officer, an Airport Police Station at Terminal 3. Since the CCTV footage is a valid and valuable document the complainant requested the opposite parties to preserve the whole events from the time of entering of the complainant on 28.07.2021. However, the same was denied. Thus by the deficiency in service committed by all the opposite parties the complainant was stopped from traveling on the fateful day. Thus the complainant sought for the return of ticket charges of Rs.41,133/- along with Rs.20,00,000/- compensation.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite parties 1&2 vehemently argued that the entire tickets cost was refunded as per Ex.B6 wherein refund of Rs.12,431/- was made on 31.07.2021 and also the penalty was recalled and a full refund was made on 14.11.2022 (i.e.) a sum of Rs.28,350/- after deducting the travel agent Commission of Rs.533/-. Still not satisfied the complainant has come up with the present complaint without making out any exact deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Though the allowed luggage weight was only 27kgs the complainant carried three baggage of 28kgs which was excess baggage which he himself admits and that importantly the RTPCR was not shown by the complainant when requested for. He referred to the reply notice dated 07.10.2021 and argued that the complainant was asked to reduce the extra weight or to pay additional expenses on the day of travel but, the complainant left the counter to reduce the weight of the excess baggage to avoid payment for excess weight. As the schedule flight was over booked when the complainant offered for another flight the complainant refused the said proposal and hence necessary arrangement was made to list the complainant for boarding on the scheduled flight. Further, referring to the COVID 19 Country – wise Travel Advisory published in the opposite party’s website pertaining to travel from India to USA he argued that passengers entering US has to present a COVID 19 negative test report taken within 72 hours of departure. As the complainant failed to submit the same he was not allowed to have the boarding pass. Thus stating that the complainant could not board the scheduled flight on the said day and traveled to Chicago, Illinois, USA only because of the default on the part of complainant and no liability accrues to the opposite parties as the permission to board the flight was under the Governance of the travel advisory issued by the USA Government, the learned senior counsel sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
The learned counsel appearing for 3rd opposite party argued that for denying boarding the complainant had submitted complaint only against the Airlines staffs and no allegations were made against them. But prayer was sought for against all the opposite parties. He cited the reasons for denial of boarding for the complainant as excessive baggage and non-production of RT-PCR certificate and that no specific allegation was made against them, he sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On appreciation of the entire materials and pleadings, it is established that the complainant was possessing a valid F-1 Status Visa issued by the US Government for Academic and Language vide Ex.A1 dated 30.04.2021. In the reply notice dated 07.10.2021 issued by the opposite parties the Terms for COVID 19 country wise Travel Advisory has been produced wherein under clause (7) the category of passenger permitted to travel was given and under sub clause (k) it is seen that student with valid F-1 and M-1 visas intending to begin or continue an academic program commencing from 1st August 2021 are permitted to travel inside USA. Hence, the complainant satisfies the said requirements by possessing a valid F-1 Status Visa. It was even admitted by opposite parties 1 & 2 that the complainant reached the Airport in time in their version.
The main two defences raised by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 1 & 2 at the time of arguments is that the complainant was carrying an excessive baggage and that nonproduction of RTPCR when requested. However, in reply notice it is admitted under Para 4(5) that “at around 02.24 am when your client returned to the check-in counter, the issue of excess baggage was resolved but your client did not present a Valid RT-PCR Report which was an essential requisite for travel to USA as per the Guidelines and Advisory issued by USA Government. Due to the aforesaid your client failed to check-in and was declared no-show for boarding the said flight”. Also, there was no plausible explanation for the complaint allegations that the complainant’s baggage was tagged which symbolized that the complainant was permitted to carry the luggage in the Aircraft. In such circumstances it is seen that the excessive baggage issue was sorted out and only the nonproduction RTPCR report was the reason for not allowing the complainant to board the flight.
The complainant had produced Ex.A3 the COVID 19 RT-PCR report dated 25.07.2021 with time at 06.53am. The said report very well satisfies the requirements of the time limit fixed i.e. within 72 hours of departure by the travel Advisory as provided by the opposite parties in their reply notice. In the report it was provided that the complainant status of COVID 19 by Department of Genetics as Negative. When the complainant possesses a valid RT-PCR Negative report being a student at an abroad University holding F-1 Status Visa has no difficulty in producing the same when sought for by the checking personnel. The version of the complainant is that the opposite parties are repeatedly seeking for the Visa documents and the RT-PCR reports which was duly complied by him. In the said scenario, the allegation made by the opposite parties against the complainant that the complainant was not permitted to board the flight for nonproduction of RT-PCR seems to be half-witted and has to be brushed aside as no prudent person will deny producing the RTPCR on request for entry into the Aircraft.
As found in email dated 03.08.2021 the opposite parties 1 & 2 had stated that “it was reported that due to over booking of flight you were given alternative to travel on UA flight from DEL to ORD via IAD and pay for the excessive baggage. At first, you were reluctant to pay for the excess baggage and demanding up gradation in business clause due to over booking. Later on, you were accommodated on the original flight and requested to produce the documents for verification and pay for the excess…..”. This statement by the opposite parties creates a doubt for us to conclude that the complainant was purposefully denied boarding due to over booking and that their request for alternative travel was refused by the complainant.
It is also seen that the opposite parties had refunded the entire ticket charges including the penalty of Rs.28,350/- which was imposed on the complainant. If at all there was no fault on the part of the opposite parties no necessity arises for them to refund the ticket charges including the penalty excluding the travel agent’s commission of Rs.533/-.
In the above said circumstances it is well established that the complainant was unnecessarily delayed boarding only because of the activities on the part of the opposite parties and resultantly denied travel in the scheduled flight inspite of possessing a valid ticket, Visa and other travel related documents like RT-PCR. The said acts of the opposite parties clearly amounted to deficiency in service as Airlines cannot deviate from their contractual obligations without valid reasons as stated in the Carriage Act. Merely seeking an “apology for what has happened in the course of business without prejudice” as found in the reply notice and refunding the ticket charges would not exonerate the opposite parties from their liability.
As rightly pointed out by the opposite party 3 that they have no role to play in the boarding scenario of the complainant. Also opposite party 5 was not involved and hence no liability could be fixed on both opposite parties 4 & 5.
In the said facts and circumstances we hold that the opposite parties 1 & 2 had committed clearly deficiency in service in preventing the complainant from boarding the scheduled flight for which liability could be fixed upon them. This point answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite parties 1 & 2.
Point No.2:-
As we have held above that the opposite parties 1 & 2 had committed deficiency in service, appropriate compensation has to be awarded to the complainant for denying boarding for no reasons, but for implicating the complainant himself. We are of the view that despite provisions of Aircraft Act and Carriage by Air Act, the Consumer Commissions can provide compensation in the instant case such as denial of booking. Thus we fix a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid by opposite parties 1 & 2 for the mental agony, hardship and physical stress suffered by the complainant due to denial of boarding and travel. Litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- also awarded. We are not awarding the refund of ticket charges as it is proved that the same was refunded to him in entirety.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed against the opposite parties 3 to 5 and partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 & 2 directing them
a)To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
c) Amount in clause (a) if not paid in six weeks shall attract interest at the rate of 6% from the date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 25th day of July 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
