Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/5/2019

Dr.E. Muralidharan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Indigo Airlines & Another - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

19 Jan 2023

ORDER

                        Date of Complaint Filed : 13.12.2018

                        Date of Reservation      : 06.01.2023

                        Date of Order               : 19.01.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                               : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,               :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,        : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 5/2019

THURSDAY, THE 19^thDAY OF JANUARY 2023

Dr. E. Muralidharan,

38/30. B.M. Garden Street,

Alwarpet,

Chennai - 600 018.                                                                                                              ... Complainant

..Vs..

1.The Manager - Customer Relations,

M/S. Indigo Airlines,

Level 1, Tower C, Global Business Park,

Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road,

Gurgaon-122 002, Haryana.

 

2.The Manager,

M/S. Indigo Airlines,

 No.144/145, Malavika Centre,

Kodambakkam High Road,

Chennai-600 024, Tamil Nadu.                                                                                          ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant               : M/s. Dr.E. Muralidharan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties          : M/s. S. Ramasubramaniam and  Associates

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru.T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental stress, agony, harassment, insult, hardship and pain due to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.950/- collected as an excess fare with an interest of 18% p.a from 15.12.2016 till date along with cost of this complaint.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

 The Complainant was invited as a course faculty to conduct training programme for Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), Sivasagar, Assam Region at Kaziranga National Park. Accordingly programme was planned for a meeting with officials of ONGC at Kaziranga in the afternoon. Flight ticket was booked to the Complainant for travel from Chennai to Kolkata and connecting flight from Kolkata to Jorhat and travel by road to Kaziranga to reach in the afternoon during lunch time.The flight ticket was booked for the Complainant by the travel agent for ONGC, Balmer Lawrie and Co Limited, Kolkata in the Indigo Airlines of the Opposite Party to fly from Chennai to Kolkata on 15.12.2016 in Flight No. 6E-987 departing at 5:40 AM. On 15.12.2016, he went to Kamaraj Domestic terminal of the Meenambakkam Airport to travel to Kolkata. After the security check at entrance and baggage scanning reached the check-in counter at 5:00 AM and he received the boarding pass. Then after security checks he reached boarding gate at 5:20 AM. The lady staff was about to scan the boarding pass, a male officer rushed to the spot and said the gate is closed. To shock and surprise Complainant told him that the flight departs at 5:40 AM and now it is only 5:20 AM. He also told him that his connecting flight at Kolkata to Jorhat, Assam is at 10:30 AM. But he bluntly refused to oblige and replied that the fight is full and is about to take off. After few minutes two other passengers also joined me and questioned the officer and he said the same thing off this place and go upstairs In fact, he shouted at us to get out- to cancel the tickets. Actually he threatened us stating that it is high security sterile area if we do not leave will call the police. This arrogant behaviour of the officer towards the passengers was un-warranted. He went upstairs to the security counter and registered the cancellation of ticket in the register. Then he met the Manager of Indigo Airlines in the airport and lodged oral compliant against the officer of his arrogant behavior. The manager said he will accommodate the Complainant in the next flight departing at 7:50 AM and said this flight will reach Kolkata at 10:00 AM and the Complainant can catch the connecting flight to Jorhat at 10:30 AM. Then the Manager asked the Complainant to pay Rs.950/- to issue a new ticket. The Complainant showed the back of flight ticket that clearly stated that it is a corporate ticket - No Cancellation Fee and Re-routing Fee (Typed set - 2). But he said the computer will not issue a new re-routing ticket without paying Rs.950/- as charge and said Complainant can get the money back when appeal to the head office. After this assurance the Complainant paid the Rs.950/- through the IOB-VISA debit card and received the new flight ticket and boarded the flight with a new boarding pass. In fact, the passengers were allowed to board this flight till 7:40 AM and that delayed the departure by about 15 minutes. The flight got delayed and he reached Kolkata airport at 10:15 AM. Then he collected the baggage and reached the Jet Airlines check-in counter at 10:37 AM. He was told the flight to Jorhat No. 9W 7048 already left and his ticket was cancelled as reported late. He was told there is only one flight everyday to Jorhat and he was terribly disturbed and called the officials of ONGC at Sivasagar, Assam. They took their time off to coordinate with travel agent at Kolkata. Then his programme was re-scheduled by flight from Kolkata to Guwahati and to Kaziranga by car. He received a new flight in Spicejet (No. 6G 657) to Guwahati departing at 1:35 PM and reached at 3:00 PM. He started travel in car by road from Guwahati at 3:30 PM and reached to Kaziranga at 8:30 PM. He had missed the crucial meeting with ONGC officials. The road travel was tedious in busy highway with frequent traffic jams. The long travel in cold weather was scary for himas he was travelling to politically sensitive North East regions known for militant activities. In fact, few months back an ONGC Engineer was abducted by militant in this region. Further, he does not know the Hindi language and was finding difficult to communicate with the driver in the unknown terrain. The ONGC officers were calling him every half an hour through mobile phone also talking to the driver and constantly checking his whereabouts. Then he Complainant reached venue at Kaziranga at 8:30 PM after a grueling 5 hours journey. Theentire journey that started at morning 4:00 AM lasted for nearly more than 16 hours made him sick and pain and was administered drug for rest. The officer of Opposite Party - Indigo Airlines at Chennai was totally responsible for all those events as his right to travel in the flight was denied. Once the boarding pass was issued it was the duty and responsibility of the airline to take the passenger who reported in time before the flight departure. The officer at boarding gate told was strange the flight was full and about to take-off. When he was with the valid boarding pass how the flight can be full? Once the boarding pass is issued without cancellation new ticket to other passenger cannot be issued. If the boarding pass was already issued to another passenger they could have denied his boarding pass. Further there were no Indigo officials present in the security checks to guide their passengers to the boarding gate unlike other airlines doing this service. So, certainly there is a deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party who not only cheated him but also collected an additional charge of Rs.950/.  When he boarded Indigo flight (No. 6E 389) at Guwahati to Chennai on 18.12.2018 due to heavy rush at the airport the flight departure was delayed about 30 minutes. He brings to the notice that the airlines exercise excessive arbitration powers in deciding all matters in their favour forcing the passengers always at disadvantageous positions. He wrote to the Manager - Customer Relations, the Opposite Party explaining all the above Information and requested him only to refund the excessive fee Rs.950/- collected by him. He replied through email that this money will not be refunded. The reason cited by him was absolutely ridiculous. He said passenger reporting within 25 minutes scheduled departure cannot be accepted on the flight as per the terms and conditions. He also said this information also mentioned on the itinerary sent to him. Then he replied through email stating that at the back side of the ticket it is clearly mentioned that it was a corporate ticket - No Cancellation Fee and Re-routing Fee. The he replied through email citing different reason that the passengers reporting within 45 minutes of the scheduled departure cannot be accepted on the flight as per the terms and conditions. If this is the case how the boarding pass was issued to him who reported at the check-in counter 40 minutes before the scheduled departure at 5:00 AM for the flight departing at 5:40 AM? Secondly, when the ticket vividly mentioned that - No Cancellation Fee and Re-routing Fee as per the terms and conditions why the Opposite Party collected an Re-routing fee of Rs.950/-?.He had mentioned this information once again and sent an email to the Opposite Party and he never replied till date. When he recently travelled from Chennai to Hyderabad and back in spicejet, the ticket clearly mentioned that the boarding time of 30 minutes given to the passenger - 6:50 AM for 7:20 AM departing flight and 20:15 PM for 20:45 PM departing flight. Whereas, the Indigo airline stated the boarding gate closes 25 minutes before the flight departure. This arbitrary timing of Indigo airlines puts passengers in trouble. The Opposite Party is liable for breach of contract as it has not complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement and has acted extremely negligently in attending to his complaint and is therefore liable to compensate him for the loss and injury caused to him.Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The present Written Version is being filed for and on behalf of the Opposite Parties (mentioned in the Complaint in a wrong manner as Indigo Airlines'). InterGlobe Aviation Limited is having its registered office at Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi and corporate office at Tower C, Level 2, Global Business Park, M.G. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122002. Before dealing with the specific allegations mentioned in the said Complaint, InterGlobe Aviation Limited submits the following preliminary objections. The complete copy of the Complaint was not served to them. Hence, InterGlobe Aviation Limited is filing the present preliminary written version based on an incomplete copy of the Complaint as provided by the Complainant. In light of the above, InterGlobe Aviation Limited seeks leave of this Hon'ble Forum to amend/ alter the same, once it is served with the complete copy of the Complaint. The present Complaint is filed beyond the limitation period as provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and deserves to be dismissed at in limine, as the cause of action arose on 15.12.2016 and the complaint ought to have been filed within 2 years, i.e., on or before 14.12.2018. The present Complaint is not maintainable in law or on fact. That the Complainant does not qualify as a "Consumer” under the provisions 2 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection, Act, 1986, as the ticket for travel was booked by ONGC through their Agent Balmer Lawrie & Co Ltd and further under Section 2 (1) (d) of the act the Complainant is not a Consumer, as the Complainant who had availed service from them for undertaking any business activity or a commercial activity for commercial purpose cannot be considered as a Consumer, unless the Complainant had undertaken such activity for his livelihood, as per the averments it would be clear that the tickets booked by ONGC for the Complainant as a faculty for a training programme being conducted by ONGC, hence the ticket booked was admitted by the Complainant on a commercial purpose. There has been no deficiency of service on the part of InterGlobe Aviation Limited, which can entail any relief as claimed in the present Complaint or otherwise in favour of the Complainant. The present Complaint has been filed with an oblique and mala- fide motive in order to make illegal gains from InterGlobe Aviation Limited. The reliefs as claimed in the present Complaint are misconceived and ought not to be granted by this Hon'ble Forum. The present Complaint is baseless, vague, frivolous and devoid of any merit and ought to be dismissed in limine. The Complainant has concealed material facts in order to mislead this Hon'ble Forum. The Complainant failed to appreciate that the InterGlobe Aviation Limited has acted in compliance with the applicable laws, as the Indigo CoC (Conditions of Carriage) is an enforceable contract between the Complainant and InterGlobe Aviation Limited and the same is applicable from the date of booking and the Complainant having accepted the same cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. There is concealment of material facts by the Complainant and the Complainant has failed to disclose that it was account of his own negligence that he failed to complete the boarding formalities and failed to report at the boarding gate within the stipulated timelines, as the boarding gate will be closed 25 minutes prior to the departure time, if not reported in the said timelines shall be treated as a “Gate No Show”. Even in the Boarding pass annexed by the Complainant with is mail dated 03.01.2017, wherein it was mentioned that “boarding gate closes 25 minutes prior to departure time”, hence he was aware of boarding timelines and was admittedly aware that he has to report 25 minutes before at the boarding gate before the scheduled departure of IndiGo Flight. There is admission by the Complainant that he arrived at the boarding gate at 5.20 hours on 15.12.2016 while the scheduled departure time of their flight was 5.40 hours which was known to him, which was beyond the boarding timelines, despite having knowledge that the boarding gate shall close at 5.15 hours. The Complainant has failed to bring on record the true and correct account of facts and applicable law and is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Forum by concocting false assertions liable to be dismissed, as if the boarding pass was issued to him at 5.00 am when the check-in closed at 4.55 am, whereas the Complainant had completed his check-in on 13.12.2016 at 6.34pm and had received his boarding pass at the airport on 15.12.2016at since he was not carrying any check in baggage and trying to portray that the mere printing of boarding pass amounts to check-in. Merely holding a confirmed ticket does not guarantee travel, there are certain conditions precedent which need to be fulfilled in order to be able to undertake the said journey including but not limited to completion of the check-in and boarding formalities on time. That the Complainant has concealed a material fact from this Hon'ble Forum that he was charged any change fee (re-routing fee), in accordance with the binding provisions of the IndiGo CoC, since the Complainant was “Gate No Show” he was given an offer of reaccommodation on applicable fee which was willingly and voluntarily accepted by the Complainant, hence the Complainant was only charged Rs.950/- towards re-accommodation fee and was not charged the change fee of INR 2,500/- as a goodwill gesture. Specifically, the Complainant has failed to appreciate the binding terms of the contract between the Complainant and InterGlobe Aviation Limited and has resorted to frivolous litigation with a sole intent to distort their business operations. The allegations about the delay of the next scheduled flight was delayed and reached Kolkata Airport at 10.15AM, of which the Complainant could not fly in the connected flight to Jorhat and subsequent events mentioned in the complaint till reaching Kaziranga national park were denied. The allegation that at the boarding gate the Complainant was informed that the flight was full and was about to take off, was denied, as the flight departed with empty seat that was supposed to be occupied by the Complainant and it was also denied that the seat of the Complainant was allowed to occupy by a different passenger.   Further, they have no obligation under any law or contract to deploy its staff member at the security check which is conducted by Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and it is the sole duty of the passengers  to complete their check-in and reach the boarding gate within the stipulated timelines. The allegation that the delay of IndiGo flight on 18.12.2018 from Guwahati to Chennai, by 30 minutes was denied and the same was insignificant to the present case. The Communications that has been exchanged between them and the Complainant were matters of record and they have not collected any excess amount as alleged by the Complainant. The intention of the Complainant to have monetary gains only on basis of sympathy is evident from the averments made in the Complaint. They were not liable to compensate the Complainant for the alleged loss and injury. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-19. The Opposite Parties submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Opposite Parties documents were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-7

Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

2. Whether the Complaint is barred by Limitation?

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

4. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

5. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1 to 3:

It is an undisputed fact that a flight ticket was booked for the Complainant by the travel agent for ONGC, Balmer Lawrie and Co Limited, Kolkata in the Opposite Party’s Airlines to fly from Chennai to Kolkata on 15.12.2016 in Flight No. 6E-987 departing at 5:40 AM. It is also an undisputed fact that the Complainant had reached the boarding gate at 5:20 AM.

The disputed fact of the Complainant is that after his security check at entrance and baggage scanning reached the check-in counter at 5:00 AM and he received the boarding pass and reached boarding gate at 5:20 AM, where it was informed that the Boarding gate was closed and he was not allowed to take the flight scheduled at 5.40 AM. The purpose for which the said flight was booked for him is that he was invited as a course faculty to conduct training programme for Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), Sivasagar, Assam Region at Kaziranga National Park and planned for a meeting with officials of ONGC at Kaziranga in the afternoon. Flight ticket was booked to him for travel from Chennai to Kolkata and connecting flight from Kolkata to Jorhat and travel by road to Kaziranga to reach in the afternoon during lunch time. He had a connecting flight at 10.30 AM at Kolkata to Jorhat. In spite of having the Opposite Party’s officer at the boarding gate about the same, he had bluntly refused to oblige and replied that the fight is full and was about to take off. Thereafter he went to the security counter and registered the cancellation of ticket in the register and met the Manager of the Opposite Party in the airport and lodged oral complaint against the officer who acted arrogant. The manager said he would accommodate him in the next flight departing at 7:50 AM and said this flight would reach Kolkata at 10:00 AM and he could catch the connecting flight to Jorhat at 10:30 AM. The Complainant was asked to pay additionally a sum Rs.950/- to issue a new ticket. Though his earlier ticket was a corporate ticket, where No Cancellation Fee and Re-routing Fee was applicable, it was informed to him that the computer will not issue a new rerouting ticket without paying Rs.950/- as charge and said he could get the money back when appeal is  made to the head office. On the assurance he had paid  Rs.950/- through his debit card and received the new flight ticket and boarded the flight with a new boarding pass. The passengers were allowed to board this flight till 7:40 AM which delayed the departure by about 15 minutes. The flight got delayed and he reached Kolkata airport at 10:15 AM. After collecting his baggage and reached the Jet Airlines check-in counter at 10:37 AM. He was told that the flight to Jorhat No. 9W 7048 already left and his ticket was cancelled as reported late. As there is only one flight everyday to Jorhat, he was terribly disturbed and called the officials of ONGC at Sivasagar, Assam. They took their time off to coordinate with travel agent at Kolkata, hence his programme was re-scheduled by flight from Kolkata to Guwahati and by on road to Kaziranga. He reached to Kaziranga only at 8:30 PM after a grueling 5 hours journey. He had missed the crucial meeting with ONGC officials. The road travel was tedious in busy highway with frequent traffic jams. The long travel in cold weather was scary for him as he was travelling to politically sensitive North East regions known for militant activities. As few months back an ONGC Engineer was abducted by militant in this region. Further, he does not know the Hindi language and was finding difficult to communicate with the driver in the unknown terrain. The ONGC officers were calling him every half an hour through mobile phone also talking to the driver and constantly checking his whereabouts. The entire journey that started at morning 4:00 AM lasted for nearly more than 16 hours made him sick and pain and was administered drug for rest. The officer of Opposite Party - Indigo Airlines at Chennai was totally responsible for all those events as his right to travel in the flight was denied. Once the boarding pass was issued it was the duty and responsibility of the airline to take the passenger who reported in time before the flight departure. The officer at boarding gate told was strange the flight was full and about to take-off. And the Complainant had contended that when he was with the valid boarding pass it could not be said that the flight is full. Further, once the boarding pass is issued without cancellation, new ticket to other passenger cannot be issued and only if the boarding pass was already issued to another passenger they could have denied his boarding pass. Further there were no Indigo officials present in the security checks to guide their passengers to the boarding gate unlike other airlines doing this service. Hence, there is a deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party who not only cheated him but also collected an additional charge of Rs.950/.  When he boarded Indigo flight (No. 6E 389) at Guwahati to Chennai on 18.12.2018 due to heavy rush at the airport the flight departure was delayed about 30 minutes, which shows that the airlines exercise excessive arbitration powers in deciding all matters in their favour forcing the passengers always at disadvantageous positions. He wrote to the Manager - Customer Relations, the Opposite Party explaining all the above happenings and requested him only to refund the excessive fee Rs.950/- collected by him, he reached a reply through email stating that this money will not be refunded and the passenger reporting within 25 minutes scheduled departure cannot be accepted on the flight as per the terms and conditions, which was informed in the itinerary sent to him, which constrained him to send a rejoinder stating that at the back side of the ticket it was clearly mentioned that it was a corporate ticket - No Cancellation Fee and Re-routing Fee, for which he received a reply citing different reason that the passengers reporting within 45 minutes of the scheduled departure cannot be accepted on the flight as per the terms and conditions. The Complainant contended that if that was the case how he was issued with boarding pass who reported at the check-in counter 40 minutes before the scheduled departure at 5:00 AM for the flight departing at 5:40 AM. Further, in the ticket it was mentioned as No Cancellation Fee and Re-routing Fee as per the terms and conditions then why the Opposite Party had collected Re-routing fee of Rs.950/- from him. He had mentioned this information once again and sent an email to the Opposite Party and he never replied till date. The Opposite Party is liable for breach of contract as it has not complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement and has acted extremely negligently in attending to his complaint and is therefore liable to compensate him for the loss and injury caused to him.

The Opposite Party had contended that the Complainant does not qualify as a "Consumer” under the provisions 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection, Act, 1986, as the ticket for travel was booked by ONGC through their Agent Balmer Lawrie & Co Ltd and further under Section 2 (1) (d) of the act the Complainant is not a Consumer, as the Complainant who had availed service from them for undertaking any business activity or a commercial activity for commercial purpose cannot be considered as a Consumer, unless the Complainant had undertaken such activity for his livelihood, as per the averments it would be clear that the tickets booked by ONGC for the Complainant as a faculty for a training programme being conducted by ONGC, hence the ticket booked was admitted by the Complainant on a commercial purpose. Further Contended that the present Complaint is filed beyond the limitation period as provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and deserves to be dismissed at in limine, as the cause of action arose on 15.12.2016 and the complaint ought to have been filed within 2 years, i.e., on or before 14.12.2018. Further contended that the Complainant had checked in on 13.12.2016 at 6.34 pm when the flight ticket was booked for him Scheduled on 15.12.2016 at 5.40 AM, hence the Complainant had misled the Commission by mentioning as if the boarding pass was issued to him at 5.00AM, when the check-in was closed at 4.55 am, it is to be noted that the Complainant had completed his check-in on 13.12.2016 at 6.34pm and had received his boarding pass at the airport on 15.12.2016 since he was not carrying any check in baggage and trying to portray that the mere printing of boarding pass amounts to check-in. Further contended that the Complainant has failed to disclose that he had failed to complete the boarding formalities and failed to report at the boarding gate within the stipulated timelines, as the boarding gate will be closed 25 minutes prior to the departure time, if not reported in the said timelines shall be treated as a “Gate No Show”. Even in the Boarding pass annexed by the Complainant with is mail dated 03.01.2017, wherein it was mentioned that “boarding gate closes 25 minutes prior to departure time”, hence he was aware of boarding timelines and was admittedly aware that he has to report 25 minutes before at the boarding gate before the scheduled departure of IndiGo Flight. Further contended that the Complainant himself had admitted that he arrived at the boarding gate at 5.20 hours on 15.12.2016 while the scheduled departure time of their flight was 5.40 hours which was known to him, which was beyond the boarding timelines, despite having knowledge that the boarding gate shall close at 5.15 hours. Further contended that merely holding a confirmed ticket does not guarantee travel, there are certain conditions precedent which need to be fulfilled in order to be able to undertake the said journey including but not limited to completion of the check-in and boarding formalities on time. Further contended that the Complainant had concealed a material fact that he was charged any change fee (re-routing fee), in accordance with the binding provisions of the IndiGo CoC, since the Complainant was “Gate No Show” he was given an offer of re-accommodation on applicable fee which was willingly and voluntarily accepted by the Complainant, hence the Complainant was only charged Rs.950/- towards re-accommodation fee and was not charged the change fee of INR 2,500/- as a goodwill gesture. Further contended that they had acted in compliance with the applicable laws, as the Indigo CoC (Conditions of Carriage) is an enforceable contract between the Complainant and InterGlobe Aviation Limited and the same is applicable from the date of booking and the Complainant having accepted the same cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Hence there has been no deficiency of service on their part and the Complaint has been filed with an oblique and mala- fide motive in order to make illegal gains and the reliefs as claimed in the present Complaint were misconceived.

The issue to be decided first is that whether the Complainant is a consumer and whether he could maintain the present complaint, though the flight ticket has been booked by ONGC through its agent, the ticket was issued in the name of the Complainant, Ex.A-1 and the Opposite Party having accepted the Complainant as a passenger of their flight under the confirmed ticket, which is a contract, and the contention of the Opposite Party that as admitted by the Complainant, he was invited by ONGC as a faculty for a training programme, and the travel is for commercial purpose, when the Complainant has not pleaded it was for his livelihood, is not legally sustainable, as the Opposite Parties had failed to produce any material evidence to substantiate the same. Hence the Complainant is a Consumer.

The Issue of whether the Complaint barred by Limitation, as the cause of action arose on 15.12.2016 and the complaint ought to have been filed within 2 years, i.e., on or before 14.12.2018, it was contended that the present Complaint was filed beyond the limitation period, on perusal of records the Complaint has been filed on 13.12.2018, which is well within the limitation. Hence the Complaint filed by the Complainant is not barred by Limitation.

On the issue of whether the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 had committed deficiency of service, as per Ex.B-4 IndiGo Conditions of Carriage, Article 8.2 specifies on Boarding which is reproduced as follows, “ In order to maintain schedules, the boarding gate will be closed 30 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 announcement 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).”  Though the Opposite Parties in their written version had mentioned that the boarding gate will be closed 25 minutes prior to the departure time, the Complainant found to be reported at the Boarding gate on 15.12.2016 at 5.20AM when the departure time of the subject flight was scheduled at 5.40AM, either as per Ex.B-4 he should have been reported at the boarding gate by 5.10AM or should have been reported at the boarding gate by 5.15AM as per the pleading of the written version. Further from Ex.A-1 Confirmed Flight Ticket booked in the name of the Complainant in the terms and conditions mentioned in the rear side of the ticket, it was clearly mentioned that Boarding gates closes 25 minutes prior to the Scheduled time of departure for domestic sectors and requested to report at the departure gate at the indicated boarding time. Any passenger failing to report in time, may be refused boarding privileges. Hence it would be clear that the Complainant is well aware of the reporting time is 25 minutes prior to the Scheduled time of departure of the subject flight and had failed to report at the Boarding Gate in time without following the timeline mentioned in Ex.A-1 or stipulated in the IndiGo CoC as found in Ex.B-4 and that the denial of entry of the Complainant to board the flight by the Opposite Parties does not constitute deficiency of service, as the same has been made following the CoC. Further the Complainant had raised a point that when he has to report at the Check-in counter at 4.55AM i.e., 45 minutes prior to the Scheduled departure flight, he reported at the Check-in counter only at 5.00AM which is 5 minutes after the stipulated time and he was issued boarding pass by the Opposite party, in reply to the same, the Opposite Party had contended that the Complainant had checked in on the date of booking of the ticket, i.e., on 13.12.2016 at 6.34pm, which was not denied by the Complainant. The Judgment reported in (2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 463 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Interglobe Aviation Limited Vs N.Satchidanand, relied upon by the Opposite Party, varies with the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, hence the same would not apply to the instant case.

In response to refund of Rs.950/- received from the Complainant to book a ticket in another flight of the Opposite Party on the same day, sought by the Complainant, the Opposite Party had contended that as specified in Article 8.3 of IndiGo Conditions of Carriage, “8.3 – Failure To Comply : IndiGo will not be liable to the Customer for any loss or expense incurred due to their failure to comply with the provisions of this Article. ”As per the said Article the Complainant having failed to comply with Article 8.2 mentioned above, he would not be entitled for any loss or expense incurred, as the Complainant was declared as “Gate No Show”, if he would not have travelled in the subject flight. The sum of Rs.950/- was collected towards applicable re-accommodation fees and the Complainant was not charged any cancellation fee of Rs.3,000/- or change fee of Rs.2,500/- and it was not assured by any of their officer to the Complainant that the said amount would be refunded. Further under Ex.A-11 Rejoinder Mail dated 21.02.2017 sent by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party it was mentioned that “Since you have decided not to refund the illegal excess fare collected from me. I would inform you that, I was invited by ONGC, I decided to deal only with them. So, it is their duty to get the refund.” The Complainant having accepted and paid an amount of Rs.950/- for booking a ticket in another flight of the Opposite Party cannot term it as an illegal excess fare collected from him and having informed the 1^st Opposite Party that he left the issue of refund with ONGC, and further having not averred about the status of refund made to ONGC, though the Complainant nor ONGC is not entitled for the said refund. Hence we decide that the Complainant is not entitled for relief of refund of Rs.950/- paid by him to the Opposite Party Airlines for booking a new ticket in another flight of them.

Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2. Accordingly Point Nos. 1 to 3 are answered.

Point No.4 and 5:

As discussed and decided Point No.3 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence also not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 4 and 5 are answered.

        In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 19^th of January 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	15.12.2016	Flight Ticket-Chennai to Kolkata Indigo Airlines
Ex.A2	15.12.2016	Boarding Pass-1, Payment Receipt and Boarding Pass-2
Ex.A3	15.12.2016	Flight Ticket-Kolkata to Jorhat-Jet Airlines
Ex.A4	15.12.2016	Flight Ticket-Kolkata to Guwahati – Spicejet
Ex.A5	15.12.2016	Boading Pass-Kolkata to Gwwahati-spicejet
Ex.A6	18.12.2016	Flight Ticket-Guwahati to Chennai – Indigo Airlines
Ex.A7	03.01.2017	Letter from the Complainant to the Manager, Customer Relations- Indigo Airlines
Ex.A8	21.01.2017	Letter through Email from Manager Customer Relations-Indigo Airlines to the Complainant
Ex.A9	24.01.2017	Letter through Email from Complainant to Manager, Customer Relations-Indigo Airlines
Ex.A10	30.01.2017	Letter through Email from Manager Customer Relations-Indigo Airlines to the Complainant
Ex.A11	21.02.2017	Letter through Email from Complainant to Manager, Customer Relations-Indigo Airlines
Ex.A12	20.10.2018	Boarding Passes – Chennai to Hyderabad and Hyderabad to Chennai
Ex.A13	20.03.2022	Deccan Chronicle Newspaper Reporting Telangana State Consumer Forum Award against Indigo Airlines
Ex.A14	09.10.2021	India Narrative Online News portal Reporting of UP State Consumer Forum Award against Indigo Airlines
Ex.A15	28.02.2017	Deccan Chronicle Newspaper Reporting of Kurnool District Consumer Forum Award against Indigo Airlines
Ex.A16	29.05.2022	Times of India Newspaper reporting of DGCA fined Indigo Airlines
Ex.A17	10.06.2022	MINT online News magazine reporting of misbehaviour of Indigo Airline staff with an Actor
Ex.A18	15.02.2022	Hindustan Times Newspaper reporting of complaint against Indigo Airlines by Ex-Army Officer
Ex.A19	14.06.2022	The Hindu Newspaper reporting of DGCA fined Air India

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1	30.08.2018	Letter of Authotization of Mr.Rahul  Kumar along with Board Resoultion
Ex.B2	11.08.2006	Certificate of Incorporation of Opposite Party No.2
Ex.B3	13.12.2016	Screenshot of air ticket booking of the Complainant under PNR No,EE34VA
Ex.B4		Printout of Indigo Coc
Ex.B5	15.12.2016	Printout of flight manifest for the Indigo Flight from Chennai to Kolkata
Ex.B6		Screenshot of refund by InterGlobe Aviation Limited
Ex.B7		Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT