BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.331 of 2018.
Date of institution: 20.12.2018.
Date of decision:05.11.2019.
Lalit Kumar son of Sh. Murari Lal, aged 49 years, r/o H.No.701/2, Ambala Road, Chiranjiv Colony, Kaithal, District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Muthoot Finance Ltd. Branch Office, on the first floor of Surjit Plaza, on PMB Ambala Road, Kaithal through its Manager, Kaithal.
- Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. (Indigo), Global Business Park, Gurgaon, Haryana through its authorized officer.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Munish Sikri, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the OP.No.1.
Sh. Ranvir Prashar, Adv. for the Op No.2.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant alongwith his relative Mr. Gain Chand booked the ticket through online from the Op No.1 for Kathmandu and the Op No.1 received a sum of Rs.12,510/- from the complainant and the flight of complainant approved for 12.11.2018 from Delhi T.3 at about 11.40 and the flight No.6E3 (A32). It is alleged that the complainant reached I.G.International Airport on 12.11.2018 in time and he reached the checking counter where the checking staff of the I.H.I. Delhi asked to show the identity and receipt of confirmation of flight and the complainant shown the identity proof alongwith receipt but the checking staff has asked the complainant that there is no confirmation of his flight and then the complainant immediately called the Op but at that time, the Op did not give any satisfactory reply. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately. Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the answering Op is a Non-banking Financial Company engaged in the business of rendering loan facilities to its intending borrowers under its various schemes. As far as ticket is concerned, the answering Op was only a facilitator further the subject ticket was confirmed through the portal of Travel Jango and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the complainant was not carrying valid travel documents to enable him to travel to Nepal as per the applicable law. On being asked to produce an identification proof, the complainant produced his aadhar card, which was not a valid identification proof as per law. Thus, the staff of InterGlobe Aviation Limited were constrained to deny boarding to the complainant and his accompanying passenger in accordance with the applicable law and the binding terms of the contract between the complainant and InterGlobe Aviation Limited. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4, Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure-R5 to Annexure-R8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. Undisputedly, the complainant alongwith his relative Mr. Gain Chand booked the ticket through online from the Op No.1 for Kathmandu and the Op No.1 received a sum of Rs.12,510/- from the complainant and the flight of complainant approved for 12.11.2018 from Delhi T.3 at about 11.40 bearing the flight No.6E3 (A32). According to the complainant, he reached I.G.International Airport on 12.11.2018 in time and the checking staff of the I.G.I. Delhi asked to show the identity and receipt of confirmation of flight and the complainant shown the identity proof alongwith receipt but the checking staff has asked the complainant that there is no confirmation of his flight.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. The Ops have placed on file the detail terms and conditions of flight InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. wherein in the column of General Provisions, it is mentioned that for all international flights (except to and from Nepal), the only acceptable proof of identification would be a valid passport. All customers, including children and infants, must present a valid passport and visa (if applicable) during check-in. It is the customers’ responsibility to ensure that they have the appropriate travel documents at all times. For travel to and from Nepal, the following proofs of identification (other than the passport) would be accepted:
1. Voter’s ID card issued by the Government of India/Government ID card (for Government Officials) for adults.
2. Birth certificate/School ID for Children
3. Birth Certificate for Infants (Children below 2 years/24 months as on the date of travel).
According to comment summary of Op No.2 dt. 12.11.2018, the passenger namely Gian Chand carrying damaged election voter card and his name was not visible at the time of checking. The other passenger namely Lalit Kumar complainant carrying aadhar card and photo-copy of election voter card. So, the Indian Immgration Department denied both the passengers for invalid and damaged documents. It is mentioned in the column of General as per detailed terms and conditions placed on file by the Op No.2, “The Customers shall be solely responsible for obtaining all required travel documents and for complying with all laws, regulations orders, demand and travel requirements.”
So, in the above-said terms and conditions, it is clear that the aadar card is not mentioned as identification proof. Hence, the contention of complainant that he shown the aadhar card and damaged election voter card as identify proof at the time of checking has no force. Ld. counsel for the Ops contended that the complainant was not carrying valid travel documents to enable him to travel to Nepal as per the applicable law and all the detail of terms and conditions was also mentioned in the site “www.goindigo.in.” but the complainant did not follow the same. We have perused the ticket Annexure-C2/R2, wherein it is mentioned as under:-
“For Your Benefits
Terms & conditions
..For detailed conditions of carriage please, click here. You can also visit www.goindigo.in.”
In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the InterGlobe Aviation Limited has acted in compliance with the applicable law and the binding terms of the contract between the complainant and InterGlobe Aviation Limited. Hence, we find no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
9. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:05.11.2019. (Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Presiding Member.
