Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/60/2022

Mrs. N. Rupa Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Indigo Airlines Rep by its Managing Director and another - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. G.V. Sridharan

12 Jun 2023

ORDER

                                                                                   Date of Complaint Filed:01.04.2022

  Date of Reservation     :06.06.2023

  Date of Order              :12.06.2023

          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 

               

                        CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.60/2022

MONDAY,THE 12^th DAY OF JUNE 2023

Mrs.N.Rupa Singh,

W/o.Narbat Singh,

No.3/1, B8, CDS,Guindy Enclave,

2^nd Street, AnganamalKovil Street,

Vandikaran Street,

Guindy,

Chennai 600 0032.                                                          .. Complainant.

 

1.M/s INDIGO AIRLINES,

   Rep. by its Managing Director,

   Head Office at,

   Level 1, Tower C,

   Global Business Park,

   Mehrauli – Gurgaon Road,

   Gurgaon 122 002, Haryana  State.

 

2.The Duty Manager,

   M/s. Indigo Airlines,

   Domestic Airport,

   Meenambakkam,

   Chennai,Tamil Nadu 600 016.                                   .. Opposite Parties.

 

* * * * * * *

 

Counsel for the Complainant  : M/s.G.V.Sridharan, Advocate.,

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties  : M/s. S.Ramasubramaniam &

                                                                                      Associates,

 

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

 

(i)  The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards cost of  Bag loss/stolen by the Indigo and to pay Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation due to the damages for the negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties.

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

 

1.     The Complainant submitted that she was travelling from Chennai to Jaipur on 08.11.2021 one of her check in luggage did not reach Jaipur and she received only one check in luggage.  Then she was told by Indigo Staffs at the Chennai Airport that her hand luggage will not fit in the cabin and she was told to put her bag in check in luggage and informed the indigo staff about the valuables and fragile items in the bag for which the Indigo Staff told him he will take care of it since the Complainant’s baby was not well and was crying.  The Complainant submitted that at Jaipur Airport Indigo staff told that bag did not reached at Jaipur due to power bank inside the bag and he asked the code number of her bag to open the bag and remove the power bank.  The Complainant told that to Indigo staff Mr.Wasim that she got valuable jewellery inside the bag, the indigo staff Mr.Wasim assured that everything will be safe as the bag will opened only in front of 4 persons they will remove the power bank and close the bag and send the bag in the same flight next day.

2.     The Complainant submitted that on 09.11.2021 she went to the Jaipur Airport but they informed that the bag is not arrived at Jaipur Airport.  But the bag did not reach Jaipur from 08.11.2021 to 13.11.2021 for 5 days she kept waiting in Jaipur Hotel for the bag she never got any calls from Indigo airlines regarding her bag. Then the Complainant sent her neighbour Mr.C.Gnanavel to Chennai Airport to find out about the bag he went the airport and informed the Indigo staff about the bag, they told him the bag is in Chennai only.  So he intimated them to send the bag to Jaipur as she is waiting for the bag in Jaipur. After 2 days when she again went to Jaipur Airport and asked about the bag, the indigo staffs said that no bag received from Chennai. Again she sent her neighbour Mr.C.Gnanavel to find out about the bag again he went to Chennai Airport on 19.11.2021 for which they informed him that they already sent bag to Jaipur via Hyderabad on 14.11.2021.

3.     The Complainant submitted that but no one called him from indigo airlines regarding sending of bag on 14.11.2021 from Chennai to Jaipur via Hyderabad.  Then she sent email on customer relations Indigo regarding her bag but no response. On 17.11.2021 someone from CISF Mr.Chandra Shekar called her husband and asked him if the bag was received or not when her husband said no and the CISF Mr.Chandra sekhar told that the bag would have been stolen.  But, due to the marriage in her in-laws at Jaipur she could not come to Chennai immediately and she kept calling Indigo customers care and kept sending mails regarding her bag continuously.  But the Indigo authority never made calls regarding in her bag.  The Complainant further submitted that her brother got a friend from Hyderabad, who worked at Hyderabad Airport by name Mr.Devaraj now retired he called the Complainant on 19.11.2021 and told her that the bag is at Chennai and his friend Mr.S.P.Alagappan has confirmed that the bag is in Chennai only.  So she came back to Chennai on 12.12.2021 and asked about the bag for which Indigo staff told that they misplaced at Hyderabad Airport. 

4.     The Complainant submitted that she and her husband went to Chennai Airport police station to file complaint about her bag, but the Police authority told that its late to file a complaint and sent back and several attempts made by her, finally the Airport Police station, Meenambakkam has received the complaint and issued the CSR dated 02.01.2022. The Complainant submitted that she never got any news from Indigo Airlines about her Bag inspite of sending so many mails.

5.     The Complainant submits that the Opposite Party has not given any response and kept silent and also did not return the Bag with valuable worth about Rs.10 lakhs.  Hence she was constrained to send emails on various dates and sent the letter to the duty Manager on 22.12.2021 thereby called upon the Opposite Party to return and hand over her valuable bag by the Opposite Party.  Further to that, she claims Rs.50,00,000/- as damages for the negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Having received the same, the Opposite Party did not come forward to handover the Bag.

6.     The Complainant submits that the Opposite Parties have acted in most negligent manner while dealing with the complaint of the Complainant and she was suffered loss and mental injury, mental agony and is entitled to compensation.

II.    Written  Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief are as follows:

7.     The Opposite Parties submitted that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.  It is submitted that the Complainant has filed the present complaint against a wrong entity, is as much as, the company which undertakes airline operations domestically in India, as well as to certain international destinations is registered under the corporate name of InterGlobe Aviation Limited.  The Complainants have filed this complaint against wrong entities which are wrongly impleaded as “M/s Indigo Airlines, represented by its Managing Director, Level.1, Tower.C, Global Business park, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon 122 002, Haryana” as Opposite Party No.1 and Duty Manager, M/s. Indigo Airlines, Domestic, Airport, Meenambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 016” as Opposite Party No.2.  Therefore to the extent the present complaint has been filed against the Opposite Parties are defective and liable to be dismissed as such, qua InterGlobe Aviation Limited.

8. It is submitted that Complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint on behalf of any other passenger or customer and Complainant has no cause of action against InterGlobe Aviation Limited. It is most respectfully submitted that the Complainant and her infant were booked to travel under PNR No.VKBEFP to travel from Chennai Airport at 16:35 hours and arrive at Jaipur Airport at 19:00 hours on board IndiGo flight No. 6E-319
(“IndiGo Flight") and had they checked in baggage weighing 15 kgs tagged
as bag tag no. 0312789210 and the same was successfully received by
her at Jaipur airport. Therefore, the Complainant has no locus and cause
action to file the present complaint against the InterGlobe Aviation
Limited.

9.     Furthermore, it is submitted that the Complainant has filed the frivolous and vexatious complaint based on the contradictory and concocted facts to mislead this Hon'ble Commission. It is submitted that the same is evident from the complaint itself. The Complainant in Memo of parties as well as in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint says that "Mrs.N.Rupa Singh, W/o.Narbat Singh” wherein in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint it is stated that"….. on 08.11.2019 Air ticket in the name of Complainant husband by name Shekhawat Ramsingh.…” which categorically contradict her own statement in her complaint. In view thereof, the present Complaint deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs on the Complainant.

10.    It is submitted to note that the Complainant in the present complaint is not seeking any relief for herself but she filed the present complaint on behalf of another passenger without any authority. It is submitted that therefore, she is not entitled to file a complaint on account of the alleged deficiency of service by the InterGlobe Aviation Limited. It is humbly submitted that there is no deficiency of services in the case of Complainant who was booked under PNR No. VKBEFP. It is submitted that the Complainant has not come to this Hon'ble Commission with clean hands and are trying to unjustly enrich herself at the cost of InterGlobe Aviation Limited.

11.    The terms and conditions which govern this booking of air travel, known as the “IndiGo conditions of Carriage Domestic”(herein after referred to as “IndiGoCoC”) form a binding contract between InterGlobe Aviation Limited and the Complainant since the same were duly made available to the Complainant at the time of booking and further were agreed to by the Complainant before the booking was processed.

12.    It is submitted that it is that this Hon’ble Commission does not have the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the captioned Complaint, in as much as the contractual terms governing the relations between the parties, (being, the Complainant and InterGlobe Aviation Ltd.), and binding upon the Complainant, i.e. InterGlobe Aviation's Conditions of Carriage (*"CoC) - Domestic, clearly stipulate that the courts at New Delhi shall have the exclusive and sole jurisdiction to settle all disputes arising out of or in connection with the said CoC.

13.    It is submitted that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, as alleged or at all, on the part of InterGlobe Aviation Limited, which can entail and / or entitle any relief as claimed in the present complaint or otherwise in favour of the Complainant.

14.    However it is submitted that the Complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and Complainant has no cause of action against Inter Globe Aviation Limited.  It is submitted that a consumer in terms of the Act, means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised and includes a beneficiary of services.  The Complainant would not be a beneficiary of any services rendered by the InterGlobe Aviation Limited. Therefore she is not entitled to file a complaint on account of the alleged deficiency of service by the InterGlobe Aviation Limited.

III.   The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed 8 documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A18. The Opposite Parties have submitted their proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to B5 documents were marked on their side. Both side written argument filed.

IV.Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether this Commission has got territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

4. To what other relief, the Complainant is entitled to?

POINT NO. 1 :-

15.    As regard the contention of the Opposite Parties that this Commission does not have requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint in as much as the contractual terms governing the relations between the parties being the Complainant and InterGlobe Aviation Limited is binding upon the Complainant, where the conditions of carriage –domestic clearly stipulate the Courts at New Delhi shall have exclusive and sole jurisdiction to settle all the disputes arising out of the said conditions of carriage, it is settled law that any clause which ousts jurisdiction of all courts having jurisdiction and conferring jurisdiction on a court not otherwise having jurisdiction would be invalid. It is also settled law that parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a Court which does not have jurisdiction and that only where two or more courts have the jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding, in agreement that the disputes shall be tried in one such Courts is not contrary to public policy. The ouster of jurisdiction of some Courts is permissible so long as the Court on which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred had jurisdiction. The clause provides courts in New Delhi to have exclusive jurisdiction irrespective of the cause of action which is invalid in law.

16.    Moreover consumer complaint could be filed where either of the Complainant or the Opposite Party resides or carries the business or where cause of action arose. In view of the fact that the Complainant is residing within the jurisdiction of this Commission and where part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission, this Commission has got territorial jurisdiction to decide the present consumer dispute. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

POINT NO. 2 :-

17. The contention of the Complainant is that, the Complainant was travelling from Chennai to Jaipur on 8.11.2021 one of her check in luggage did not reach Jaipur and she received only one check in luggage.  Then she was told by Indigo Staffs at the Chennai Airport that her hand luggage will not fit in the cabin and she was told to put her bag in check in luggage and informed the Indigo staff about the valuables and fragile items in the bag for which the Indigo Staff told her he will take care of it since the Complainant’s baby was not well and was crying.  The Complainant submitted that at Jaipur Airport, she was told that her bag has not reached Jaipur, due to power bank inside the bag and the code number of her bag had to be given to open the bag and remove the power bank. The Complainant told Indigo staff Mr.Wasim that she got valuable jewellery inside the bag, the indigo staff Mr.Wasim assured that everything will be safe as the bag will opened only in front of 4 persons they will remove the power bank and close the bag and send the bag in the same flight next day.

18.    Further contended that inspite of regular follow-ups by the Complainant and her husband to get back her baggage the Opposite Parties made the Complainant  to run from pillar to post,  and inspite of several mail communications and police complaint given by the Complainant for the missing baggage till date the Complainant did not received her baggage.

19.    The contention of the Opposite Parties is that as evident from the complaint it has been filed by the Mrs.N.Rupa Singh, W/o.Narbat Singh where as in para.12 of the complaint it has been submitted by the Complainant that the Airticket was issued in the name of the Complainant’s husband by name Shekhawat Ramsingh which contradicts her own statement in her complaint. It is seen from the proof affidavit that it is the Complainant’s husband Mr.Shekhawat Ramsingh who had given evidence on behalf of her wife, the Complainant, and the Evidence Act permits either the husband or wife to give evidence on their behalf. 

20.    A perusal of Ex.A1 to A3, would show that the Complainant, her husband Mr.Shekhawat Ram Singh and her child Janvee travelled from Chennai to Jaipur on 8.11.2021 through Flight No.6E319, carrying check in luggages and one of the check in luggage bearing VIR96F standing in the name of ShekhawatRamsingh. The contention of the Opposite Party is that the luggage bearing No.VIR96F stands in the name of Shekhawat Ramsingh.  But the complaint is filed by Rupa Singh who has no locus to file the complaint.  As both the Complainant and her husband Mr.Shekhwat Ramsingh are travelling in the same flight, differentiation of luggage carried by husband and wife cannot be made and the Complainant has locus standi to file the present complaint for the loss of baggage, though the check in baggage stands in her husband’s name Mr.Shekhawat Ramsingh.

21.    A perusal of Ex.A6, it is clear that the Complainant’s husband Mr.Shekhawat Ramsingh had authorised the InterGloble Aviation Limited , to open his baggage.  Ex.A7 is the email sent by the Complainant on 18.11.2021, to Opposite Parties informing that while she was travelling to Chennai to Jaipur on 8.11.2021, she was forced to put her luggage in check-in baggage where she has kept power bank as well as jewellery and on reaching Jaipur she found only one check in baggage and was asked to provide number lock to open the baggage and remove the power bank and send the baggage to Jaipur.  However inspite of giving authorization to the Opposite Parties to remove the power bank, she did not receive her bag for more than 10 days. As evidenced from Ex.A7 to A15, the Complainant had sent various mails seeking information from the Opposite Parties about her lost baggage at the earliest.  As per Ex.A16, the Opposite Parties had sent an email to the Complainant  as stated below”

“With reference to our mail, we would like to reiterate that as per Conditions of Carriage (Coc), a case of misplaced is governed by the COC of IndiGo.  The CoC is in the nature of binding contract between the airline and the passenger who chooses to fly with it.  Therefore, every passenger who chooses to fly with IndiGo agrees to be bound by its conditions of carriage.  The baggage rules in the CoC state that in the case of lost /damaged baggage, IndiGo’s liability for any loss or damage to Baggage is limited to INR 350 per KG.

In addition to that, as per our records, one bag weighing 8 kilos was reported missing.  Therefore in according with our CoC, we would like to offer you a monetary compensation of INR 2800.  This amount will be paid towards the full and final settlement for your claim.”

22.    Further the Opposite Party referred to clause 17.3 of the Conditions of Carriage,( Ex. B5)

17.3 Damaged, delayed or lost checked-in Baggage

For damaged, delayed or lost Checked-in Baggage, IndiGo’s liability will be limited in accordance with the provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and the rules framed thereunder with certain exceptions, adaptations and modifications as notified by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, and as amended from time to time.  Subject to the foregoing, IndiGo’s liability for lost or damaged Checked-in Baggage is limited to INR 350 per kg.  For delayed Checked-in Baggage, Customers agree that IndiGo’s liability  shall be limited and determined by IndiGo as per its discretion and based upon its prevailing policy.

23.    The Opposite Parties relied on the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in InterGlobe Aviation Limited –Vs- Satchidan and , (2011) 7 SCC 463,  wherein it was observed that Conditions of Carriage is binding on the parties. The mere fact that the passenger may not read or may not demand a copy does not mean that he will not be bound by the terms of Contract of Carriage.  Also relied on the order of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhiin Shiv Garg –Vs- Lufthansa German Airlines and others in R.P.No. 28 /2008 decided on 24.4.2018, where it was observed that as per the terms and conditions of the carriage there is no liability on the part of the Airlines could compensate the petitioner for the valuable items since the articles were being carried by the petitioner contrary to the instructions of the Airlines.

24.    On the contrary the Complainant relied upon the Order of the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi in the matter of IndiGo Airlines & Anr-Vs- Aastha Pansari decided on 17.1.2020 where reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Trans Mediterranean Airways –Vs- M/s. Universal  Exports & Anr., (2011) 10 SCC 316  and having regard to the peculiar nature of the case had ordered payment of compensation to the Complainant with interest. 

25.    The Complainant had placed reliance on the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, New Delhi in Chander MohanLall –Vs- British Airways and others by its order dated 6.11.2017,  had referred

“Emirates vs. DR Rakesh Chopra – III (2013) CPJ 500 (NC)” holding that Airlines who was entrusted with safe custody and delivery of passenger’s luggage, failed to do so causing mental tension, loss of professional face apart from monetary loss and as deficiency in the matter of lost bag proved and awarded compensation to the Complainant.  

26.    Further reliance placed on the order of the State Commission, New Delhi in Jet Airways (I) Ltd., -Vs- Ajit Kumar Sinha on 18.11.2020 holding as follows:

“The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted to give relief to consumers for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice etc., by service provides, traders, manufactures etc., and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the  The Consumer & Citizens Forum V.Karnataka Power Corporation (1994 (1) CPR 130) has laid down that the provisions of this Act given the consumer an additional remedy besides those that may be available under other existing laws.  In the instant case, no doubt the Appellant Airlines had sought to settle the consumer’s grievance purely in terms of the notional monetary loss suffered by him as per the relevant provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972.  However, as discussed earlier, because there was deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant Airlines in losing and mishandling the Respondent’s luggage, which caused him harassment, agony, mental tension and loss of professional face apart from monetary loss, he is entitled to compensation for this deficiency in service on Appellant’s part as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Keeping in view these facts, the State Commission has awarded a compensation of Rs.2.00 Lakhs.  We see no reason to disagree with the compensation awarded, which we feel, is fully justified under the circumstances”.

“In view of the above cited case laws, the contention of the appellant/OP that respondent/Complainant is entitled to compensation as per weight of baggage has no force.  In the present case, the appellant/OP has admitted that there was a delay in delivery of the baggage of the respondent.  It is own case of the appellant/OP that it had offered interim compensation also.  The Respondent/Complainant is a senior Advocate.  Had gone to attend a case of Patna High Court.  The name of the case is mentioned in the complaint case as well as in the affidavit of Respondent/Complainant.  Nothing contrary is placed on record by Appellant/P to rebut the affidavit of Respondent/Complainant. In these circumstances, contention of the appellant that details of case were not given has no force and is rejected.  There is negligence and deficiency of service of the Appellant/Opposite Party in misrouting luggage of the Respondent.  The Respondent/Complainant has appeared without books and files which has caused him harassment and great mental tension and also he could not perform his duties properly” and confirmed the order of the District Forum awarding compensation.

27.    On the discussions made above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties having admitted the loss of baggage of the Complainant had not taken any effective steps to trace of the missing baggage of the Complainant inspite of several communications made by the Complainant and had been very lethargic and indifferent in rendering their service to their customer, causing loss, mental agony and hardship to the Complainant which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service. Accordingly Point No.2 is answered.

Point Nos. 3 and 4:

28.    we have discussed and decided Point No.1 in favour of the Complainant the valuables in bag was not proved by material evidence by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards  compensation for negligence and deficiency in service caused to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of the litigation. within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above sum of Rs.50,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realisation. The Complainant is not entitled for any other reliefs. Accordingly Point Nos. 3 and 4 are answered.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards  compensation for negligence and deficiency in service caused to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of the litigation within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above sum of Rs.50,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realisation.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 12^th of June 2023.

 

 

T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                                B.JIJAA

       MEMBER I                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

 

 

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

 

Ex.A1	08.11.2021	Xerox copy of the  Air Ticket in the name of Complainant.
Ex.A2	08.11.2021	Xerox copy of the Air Ticket in the name of Complainant’s husband by name ShekhawatRamsingh.
Ex.A3	08.11.2021	Xerox copy of Boarding pass.
Ex.A4	08.11.2021	Xerox copy of Bar code in respect of online confirmation by the Indigo registered bag under tag number 0312789116.
Ex.A5		Xerox copy of the picture of luggage bag.
Ex.A6	08.11.2021	Xerox copy of the letter of authorisation given by Indigo registered bag under  tag Number 0312789116.
Ex.A7	13.11.2021	Xerox copy of Mail sent by the Complainant to the Airport authority.
Ex.A8	18.11.2021	Xerox copy of Mail sent by the Complainant to the customer relations @ goindigo.
Ex.A9	21.11.2021	Xerox copy of Mail sent by the Complainant to the customer relations @ goindigo.
Ex.A10	22.11.2021	Xerox copy of Mail sent by the Complainant to the customer relations @ goindigo.
Ex.A11	15.12.2021	Xerox copy of Mail sent by the Complainant to the customer relations @ goindigo.
Ex.A12	19.12.2021	Xerox copy of Mail sent by the Complainant to the customer relations @ goindigo.
Ex.A13	21.12.2021	Xerox copy of Mail sent by the Complainant to the customer relations @ goindigo.
Ex.A14	22.12.2021	Xerox copy of  the letter given  by the duty Manager, Indigo Airlines, Chennai –by way of person.
Ex.A15	30.12.2021	Xerox copy of Mail sent by the Complainant to the customer relations @ goindigo.
Ex.A16	03.01.2022	Xerox copy of CSR issued by Airport Police station in CSR No.3/2022.
Ex.A17	10.01.2022	Xerox copy of Mail sent by the Complainant to the CM Cell & Commissioner of Police, Chennai.
Ex.A18	28.01.2022	Xerox copy of Mail sent by the Complainant to the customer relations @ goindigo.

 

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

 

Ex.B1		Xerox copy of letter of Authorization  dated 23.2.2022 and true copy of the Board Resolution dated 30.08.2018.
Ex.B2		Xerox copy of   the  Certificate of Incorporation of InterGlobe Aviation Limited.
Ex.B3		Xerox copy of   Booking details of Complainant
Ex.B4		Xerox copy of   details of call from Complainant seeking to reschedule the booked ticket
Ex.B5		Xerox copy of the IndiGo COC as applicable on the date of booking.

 

 

T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                                B.JIJAA

     MEMBER I                                                                       PRESIDENT