Tripura

StateCommission

A/2/2020

General Manager, Indigo Airlines - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Rajat Kanti Ghosh - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Kushal deb, Mr. D. Saha, Mr. S. Deb

12 Feb 2021

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No. A.2.2020

 

1. The General Manager,

Indigo Airlines,

Indigo Central Wings,

Thapar House, 124 Janapath,

New Delhi - 110001.

 

2. Indigo Airliness,

228-A, AJC Bose Road,

Lala Lajpat Roy Sarani,

Kolkata - 7990020.

 

3. Station Manager,

Indigo Airlines,

Maharaja Bir Bikram Airport,

Usha Bazar, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin – 799009.

 

All the above named appellants being wrongly impleaded hereinafter referred to as

4. Appellants/Interglobe Aviation Limited,

Having its registered office at Chennai, Wing Ground Floor, Thapar House, 124 Janapath, New Delhi – 110001 and Corporate Office at Tower-C, Level 2, Global Business Park, MG Road, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122002, represented by its authorized person Mr. Rahul Kumar, Associate General Counsel.

      … … … … Appellants/Opposite Parties.

 

 

1. Sri Rajat Kanti Ghosh,

S/o Late Rathindra Kr. Ghosh

 

2. Smt. Rama Lodh(Ghosh),

W/o Sri Rajat Kanti Ghosh

 

3. Master Debayan Ghosh,

S/o Sri Rajat Kanti Ghosh,

 

All are resident of Netaji chowmuhani, opposite to the Second Entrance Gate of Netaji Subhash Vidya Niketan, Agartala, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, Pin: 799001, District - West Tripura.

 

(The complainant no.3 is minor; he is represented by respondent no.1, namely, Sri Rajat Kanti Ghosh being father and natural guardian)

                                                                                           … … … …  Respondent/Complainants.

 

 

Present

 

 

Dr Chhanda Bhattacharyya

Presiding Member,

State Commission

 

Mr. Kamalendu Bikash Das

Member,

State Commission

 

 

For the Appellants:                                  Mr. Kushal Deb, Adv.

For the Respondents:                               Sri Rajat Kanti Ghosh, in person for all the

respondents.

Date of Hearing:                                        08.02.2021.

Date of Delivery of Judgment:                 12.02.2021.

J U D G M E N T

 

The instant appeal is filed against the judgment dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.90 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the complainants i.e. the respondents herein, directing the opposite parties i.e. the appellants herein, to pay Rs.47,823/- (Rs.21,823/- as Air fare + Rs.6,000/- as hotel charges + Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony + Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation). The payment is to be made within two months from the date of judgment, failing which; it will carry interest @9% per annum till the payment is made in full.     

2. This appeal came up before the full bench of this Commission for hearing on 25.01.2021 on which date the respondent-complainant filed an application wherein he has mentioned that he has lost confidence to get justice before the President of this Commission. Upon going through the application of the respondent-complainant, Hon’ble President of this Commission has withdrawn himself from the bench and the Commission has directed the Registrar of this Commission to list the matter before a bench except the Hon’ble President of this Commission (Justice U.B. Saha). Accordingly, this bench is constituted.
3. Today the matter is fixed for hearing.
4. Heard Mr. Kushal Deb, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties) as well as Sri Rajat Kanti Ghosh, the respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as complainant) appeared in person for all the respondents.
5. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant along with his wife and his minor child went to Kolkata on 07.05.2018 by availing Indigo Flight No.6E-6488 for the purpose of medical treatment of his wife. As per pre-scheduled return journey to Agartala, the complainant with his family reached at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata on 16.05.2018 and collected boarding cards after dropping two numbers of luggage at the check-in-counter and that after undergoing security check proceeded to allotted Gate No.22 in order to board the Indigo Flight No.6E-374, but they were not allowed to board the flight by Indigo staff. He was told that boarding time was over. According to the complainant, he had then five minutes in hand to board the flight. The complainant alleged that the Indigo staff without any cogent reason and in an unjust manner deprived him and his family members of availing the Flight on that day. He had to wait for long time in the lounge at the Kolkata Airport for getting the luggage. Faced with such situation the complainant raised objection and that at the time he was given assurance by the Indigo official/staff that arrangement would be made by them so that the complainant and his family members can avail next flight if accommodation in the flight was available. On that day he could not return to Agartala. He had to stay in a hotel at Kolkata two nights i.e. on 16.05.2018 and 17.05.2018. Necessary expenses for putting up in hotel were borne by him. The complainant on 18.05.2018 purchased fresh tickets on payment of Rs.21,823/- and returned to Agartala by Indigo Flight No.6E-276. After arriving at Agartala Airport he contacted with Official of the Indigo Airways and requested him to arrange for refunding the amount of Rs.21,823/- being the flight fare incurred by him for taking the journey on 18.05.2018 from Kolkata to Agartala. He was then advised to wait for two months. The complainant thereafter on 10.06.2018 issued a letter to the opposite party no.1 demanding compensation of Rs.2 lac. As the said letter evokes no response, the complainant again served demand notice on 04.10.2018 to the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 however replied to the notice. The complainant being not satisfied with the reply has filed the present complaint before the Forum claiming compensation of Rs.2 lac under different heads namely cost of Flight Fare Rs.21,823/-, hotel charges Rs.6,000/-, transportation cost Rs.10,000/-, for deficiency of service Rs.60,000/-, for mental agony, harassment and loss of comfort Rs.1,13,177/-.

6. In due course of time, the learned District Forum/Commission issued notices to the opposite parties i.e. the appellants herein. Though the opposite parties appeared through their engaged Counsel, but failed to submit their written objection within the stipulated period i.e. 45 days. Hence, the learned District Forum/Commission proceeded ex parte against the opposite parties.
7. The complainant examined himself as PW-1 and submitted his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit. The complainant produced 10 documents comprising 19 sheets. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit-1 series. He also cross-examined by the opposite party side on law point only.

 

8. The learned District Forum framed the following points to decide the case which are as follows:- 

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

9. After hearing the parties, the learned District Forum/Commission passed the impugned judgment.
10. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned District Forum/Commission, the opposite parties, the appellants herein, have filed the instant appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was admitted, but the notices could not be served in the address given in the cause-title. Subsequently, the cause-title was amended and notices were properly served upon the respondents.
11. Mr. Deb, Ld. Counsel for the appellants-opposite parties submitted that even in absence of the written objection of the opposite parties, the learned District Forum ought to have considered the evidence on record which the learned District Forum failed to do so particularly, the fact that the appellants-Indigo Airlines did not cancel the boarding passes of the complainants, rather the same was cancelled by the CISF Authority of the airport on completion of the security check-up which would be evident from the Exhibit-1 series. He has also submitted that the case in hand is fully covered by a Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in The Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata & Anr. Vs Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.778-779/2020).
12. On the other hand, the respondent-complainant would contend that the case is not covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment as the fact of that judgment is different than the case in hand. He has also stated that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum to decide the case afresh.
13. We have gone through the evidence on record as well as the submissions of the parties. It appears from the record that the boarding passes issued by the Indigo Airlines were cancelled by the CISF Authority even after completion of the security check-up and the CISF was not made party either before the learned District Forum or before this Commission. The learned District Forum also failed to consider that aspect. More so, according to us, Mr. Deb, Ld. Counsel for appellants has rightly submitted that even in absence of the evidence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant i.e. the respondent herein, ought to have proved his case and the learned District Forum also should have decided the case after considering the evidence on record. After going through the impugned judgment we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum did not consider the fact relating to the cancellation of the boarding pass by the CISF Authority. At the midst of hearing, both the parties appearing before us have fairly submitted to set aside the impugned judgment and remand the matter to the learned District Forum/Commission for deciding the case afresh.
14. In view of the above submission, we are not discussing anything regarding evidence on record as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as relied by Mr. Deb, Ld. Counsel for the appellant-opposite parties. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum/Commission to decide the case afresh according to law after providing opportunities to the parties to place their respective case.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum/Commission, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura   PRESIDING MEMBER State Commission Tripura