FACTS The complainants, in order to visit their one ailing relative, booked two SpiceJet Air tickets on 07/03/2021from Opposite Party No. 3 for themselves for the flight SG-130 from Kolkata to Delhi for 08/03/2021. The Booking ID: FMNJA3G8VDWT4 dated 07/03/2021 in the name of the complainants which shows ‘confirm’. Complainants paid Rs.9703.60/- towards Air fare and also other charges as demanded by the Opposite Parties. The flight time from Kolkata was at 09:10 A.M. and scheduled time of arrival in Delhi was 11:40 A.M. on the same day. On the date of the journey, complainants arrived at the Airport in Kolkata at about 07:16 A.M., got their documents verified and checked luggage and obtained two boarding passes reserving seat No. 3E and 3F for them. After completion of check-in process they went to the specified Gate No. 107 at about 08:29 A.M. in order to board the flight. But the flight attendant refused to allow them to board the flight and informed them that their tickets were cancelled as they failed to arrive there on time. The flight attendant also misbehaved with them. Their repeated requests to allow them to board the flight were turned down. Subsequently, they came to know the scheduled time of departure of the said flight was rescheduled and the departure time was preponed to 08:55 A.M. instead of 09:10 A.M. As they were not allowed to board the flight, the complainants lodged a complaint with the concerned officers of Opposite Party No. 1 but to no effect. Subsequently, they had to book another ticket of Air Asia for the same day flight at a cost of Rs.13,277/- and somehow they went to Delhi. On 18/03/2021, complainants also raised their grievance and claimed for compensation for their sufferings both mentally and physically but their request was not allowed. So, they approached this Commission alleging unfair and deceptive trade practice against the Opposite Parties and prayed for refund of Rs.9,703.60/- being the amount of Air fare for SpiceJet flight and also for Rs.60,000/- for compensation and cost of litigation. Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 filed written version denying all the allegations of the complainants. According to them, complainants who were issued boarding passes failed to report at the boarding gate for the flight, in question. As per terms of carriage, the passengers in case failing to show up for boarding at the point of transit, 20 minutes prior to the departure despite having arrived on time from the point of origin, he/she would be treated as ‘Gate No Show’. As a result, they were ‘Gate No Show’ for the said flight. As per the terms of the carriage which is a contract between the parties, the ticket amount was forfeited and taxes amounting to Rs.1376/- and Rs.378/- were refunded to the complainants through agency on 22/03/2021 and on 12/11/2021 respectively. Both the Opposite Parties denied having any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice etc. on their part as alleged by the complainants. Opposite Party No. 3 did not appear and contest the case. So, this case was heard ex parte against him. The points for consideration are as follows: - Whether this case is maintainable?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties as alleged?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get relief(s) in this case?
FINDINGS: All the points are taken up together for discussion for convenience. Complainants filed their evidence-in-chief on affidavit, the copy of which was served upon the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 who raised questionnaires on the basis of the said evidence to which replies were also duly submitted by the complainants. On behalf of Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, one annexure R-14 which is the terms of carriage was filed though no evidence was filed. Complainants filed one Brief Notes of Argument. Complainants alleged in this case that despite they had valid Air tickets and boarding passes, the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 did not allow them to board the flight from Kolkata to Delhi and that is why, they alleged about deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of the Opposite Parties. From the nature of the allegations we find that the instant case is quite maintainable. We have gone through the materials on record carefully and also the documents filed in connection with this case. On behalf of the complainants, it was argued that the refusal to allow the complainants to board the SpiceJet flight SG-130 on the date of journey i.e. on 08/03/2021 despite having valid tickets and boarding passes by the flight attendant at the specified gate and their misbehaviour with them amounted to gross negligence, unfair and deceptive trade practices on the part of the Opposite Parties. So, adequate compensation should be awarded to the complainants who also had to suffer monetary losses by spending extra money in purchasing ticket for another flight for them on the same date. In this case what is admitted is that the complainants had booked ‘confirmed’ tickets for SpiceJet flight SG 130 for their journey from Kolkata to Delhi on 08/03/2021. Admittedly, the original scheduled time of departure of the flight was 09:10 A.M. in Kolkata. Admittedly also, the complainants on arrival at the Kolkata Air Port obtained boarding passes for the said flight which was to fly from Gate No. 107. It is also the fact that the complainants were not allowed to board the said flight on the ground that they failed to appear before the said specified Gate No. 107 on time. According to complainants, they arrived before the said gate on time but the flight attendant refused them to board the flight as they were told to have come late. On the other hand, in their written version, the Opposite Party No. 1 contended that the passengers who failed to appear before the boarding gate, 20 minutes before the scheduled time of departure they ‘Gate No Show’ for the said flight and as the complainants failed to appear before the gate within the stipulated time they were ‘Gate No Show’ and their ticket was forfeited and only the tax amount of Rs.1376/- and Rs.378/- were refunded to the complainants through their agency on 22/03/2021 and 12/11/2021 respectively. The main dispute in this case therefore, is whether the complainants had, in fact, present at the specified Gate No. 107 from where the travellers were to board the said flight. If the complainants can prove their presence at the stipulated time at the specified gate but were refused boarding without any valid reasons whatsoever, there would be definitely deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2. Be it noted here, on behalf of the complainants it was also argued that the subsequent rescheduling of the departure time which was actually preponed to 08:55 A.M. from 09:10 A.M. was not communicated to them. Now taking into consideration the evidence of the complainants together with their replies to the questionnaire issued on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2, we find contradictory versions of the complainants as to the exact time of their arrival at the said specified Gate No. 107. Complainants claimed to have arrived at the gate at 08:29 A.M. but they were refused to board. In the two boarding passes of the complainants, the time of departure was specifically mentioned as 08:55 A.M. So, on obtaining the boarding passes they got the knowledge of the said rescheduling of the time of the flight even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that they were not informed earlier. So, they cannot claim that they had no knowledge of actual time of departure of the said flight after having procured the boarding passes. The boarding passes further clearly show that the boarding gate would be closed 20 minutes prior to the departure time for domestic flight. Thus, if the departure time is 08:55 A.M. the boarding gate would be closed 20 minutes prior to the time i.e. at 08:35 A.M. So, the traveller in order to board the said flight, he/she must have to be present or arrived at the gate before 08:35 A.M. Barring the words of mouth, no proof is there regarding the contention of the complainants that they had arrived at the boarding gate at 08:29 A.M. Again from their replies to the questionnaire of the Opposite Parties, we find in question No. 2:- Whether the complainants were aware that the passengers are required to board the point transit 20 minutes prior to departure, they replied as follows:- “The scheduled time of departure of the flight was rescheduled and the departure time has been preponed to 08:55 A.M. from 09:10 A.M. Since no advance notice was given we reached the boarding point within the scheduled time mentioned in the Ticket issued to us.” In the Ticket issued to the complainants which they got from Opposite Party No. 3 and produced during hearing, the time of departure of the said flight was shown as 09:10 A.M. As per the said timing, the travellers were required to arrive at the boarding gate before 08:50 A.M. i.e. 20 minutes prior to the departure time. So, it is found from the said replies that the complainants had arrived at the gate taking into account that the gate would be closed at 08:50 A.M. thereby opening up the possibility of their arrival at the gate even later than 08:35 A.M. So, the complainants are found to have made contradictory claims as to the time of their arrival at the specified gate for boarding. This contradiction and ambiguity in the version of the complainants as to the exact time of their arrival at the boarding gate have led us to a reasonable suspicion as to their claim that they had arrived at the gate on time before the gate is closed. So, the complainants failed to establish and prove in no uncertain terms that they had arrived at the specified boarding gate on time. The complainants also failed to prove any kind of misbehaviour by the flight attendant with them as alleged. Though a few decisions of N.C.D.R.C namely, (2017) NCJ 316 Radha Kinkari Kejriwal vs. Jet Airways (India) Limited etc. were cited on behalf of the complainants but the findings of the said cases are found to be not applicable in our present case as the facts and circumstances of this case are different. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the complainants are not entitled to any relief (s) as prayed for. So, the instant case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 and ex parte against Opposite Party No. 3. No order as to cost. | 
