Tripura

StateCommission

A/60/2017

Interglobe Aviation Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Atanu Saha - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. U. S. Singha. Mr. K. Chakraborty, Mr. K. Roy.

25 Jun 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.60.2017

 

 

1. Inter Globe Aviation Ltd.,

Indigo, Interim Domestic Courier Terminal,

Near Gate No.7, N.S.C.B.I. Airport,

Kolkata - 700052.

[Through its Station Manager/In-charge].   

 

2. Inter Globe Aviation Ltd.,

Agartala Airport,

Nasingarh, Agartala, West Tripura – 799009.

[Through its Station Manager/In-charge].

… … … … … Appellant/Opposite Parties.

Vs

 

1. Mr. Atanu Saha,

S/o Mr. Ajit Saha,

 

2. Mrs. Pinky Saha,

W/o Mr. Atanu Saha,

 

3. Miss Tanikshya Saha,

D/o Mr. Atanu Saha, [Minor represented by Mr. Atanu Saha]

 

4. Miss Anushuya Saha,

D/o Mr. Atanu Saha. [Minor represented by Mrs. Pinky Saha]

 

Complainants 1-4 each Residents of Banamalipur, 

Near Girls' Bodhjung School,

Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin - 799001.

 

5. Sri Bidhan Ch. Saha,

S/o Late Baishnab Charan Saha,

 

6. Smt. Sabita Saha,

W/o Sri Bidhan Saha,

 

Complainants 5 and 6 each Residents of Bisalgarh Bazaar,

P.S. Bisalgarh, District - Sepahijala Tripura.

… … … … … Respondent/Complainants.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

For the Appellants:                                          Mr. Koushik Roy, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                                Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:                  25.06.2018.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellants, Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. and another under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 05.09.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura in Case No.C.C.30 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by one Atanu Saha and five others, who are the respondents in the instant appeal directing the appellants (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/IndiGo) to pay an amount of Rs.44,460/- to the six petitioners within two months, if not paid, it will carry interest @9% per annum.  

2. Heard Mr. Koushik Roy, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-opposite parties as well as Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as petitioners).   
3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

On 27.12.2016, Mr. Atanu Saha, Mrs. Pinky Saha, Miss Tanikshya Saha, Miss Anushuya Saha, Sri Bidhan Ch. Saha and Smt. Sabita Saha, the respondents herein, purchased air tickets from the opposite parties i.e. IndiGo Airlines to avail their journey in flight No.6E 139 from Kolkata to Agartala on 11.01.2017 at 09.00 a.m. Accordingly, all the petitioners arrived with their luggage at Kolkata airport and reported to the boarding counter in time and prior to that, the petitioners also made x-ray of their luggage, which were registered for carrying by the said flight. After completion of x-ray of the luggage, the petitioners have appeared before the boarding counter in time for check-in the luggage and their boarding passes were supposed to be issued while they were in queue, but at that time, the luggage which would be registered as booking luggage, not hand luggage, found that there was an excess weight of two kg. Then instead of issuing boarding card, the IndiGo Authority asked the petitioner no.1 Sri Atanu Saha to go to another counter where the charge of excess weight has to be paid and accordingly the petitioner no.1 rushed to the said counter and ultimately paid the money for having luggage of excess weight. After payment of the charges for two kg excess weight, the IndiGo Authority issued boarding pass in favour of all the petitioners at 08.15 a.m. Then with the boarding pass, they went to the security enclosure where there was a long queue. They requested the security personnel to allow them to go to the Gate No.23 in time as their flight was scheduled for departure at 09.00 a.m., but no opportunity was given to them. At last when they reached the Gate No.23, the IndiGo officials did not allow them to proceed for entering into the aircraft stating that the door of the flight had already been closed. So, they could not come to Agartala availing the said flight. It is also stated that though five luggages were registered at the time of boarding, only four luggages were returned and one luggage for which the delay was caused on being extra weight bearing S.L. No.E0312739811 was rightly boarded in the flight. Consequently, on that date, in the aforesaid flight, the said luggage was sent to Agartala. In that luggage, things like food, medicine and other wearing apparels which are required for the baby from time to time were kept separately, but it was not returned, but sent to Agartala. As a result, the petitioners suffered very much both mentally and physically and ultimately on the next day i.e. on 12.01.2017, they were able to reach at Agartala on payment of Rs.24,460/-. Petitioners had to stay at Kolkata with the baby unnecessarily and inconveniently, particularly, without the required things needed for the baby. Being aggrieved by the action of the appellant-opposite parties, IndiGo, the petitioners preferred an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum claiming an amount of Rs.5 lacs.  

4. Opposite parties Indigo Airlines appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim of the petitioners. It is stated in the written statement that as per IndiGo Condition of Carriage Domestic, petitioners being passengers were bound to report the Check-in counter two hours before the departure time. The check-in closes 45 minutes prior to the scheduled time of departure. Petitioners failed to comply with the Conditions of Carriage. So, they could not avail the journey. However, on the next date, their journey was arranged and only the difference of the price was taken from the petitioners i.e. passengers. There was no deficiency of service by the IndiGo Airlines. Opposite parties, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim of the petitioners.
5. Petitioners produced the copy of air tickets, copy of boarding pass, receipt of extra luggage, copy of Check-in of the passengers on 12.01.2017, including the boarding pass and luggage tag which were marked as Exhibit-1 series by the learned District Forum. Petitioner no.1, Sri Atanu Saha produced his statement on affidavit and he was accordingly cross-examined by the opposite parties.
6. Opposite parties, IndiGo, on the other hand, produced the certified copy of Resolution approved by Board of Directors of Indigo and also the Condition of Carriage Rules. They also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness, namely, Navneet Anand.
7. The learned District Forum after considering the pleadings of the parties framed the following points for deciding the case:-

1. Whether there was deficiency of service by the O.P. Indigo Airlines?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation as claimed?

8. After perusal of the evidence on record, the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment.
9. Mr. Roy, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that as per Article-8.1 of the Conditions of Carriage, the Check-in has to be made two hours prior to the departure of scheduled flight, but the petitioners did not report in time. He further submits that admittedly the learned District Forum in its judgment stated that there was some delay at security enclosure, therefore, the learned District Forum ought to have come to a conclusion that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties-IndiGo. Mr. Roy has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Interglobe Aviation Limited Vs N. Satchidanand (2011) 7 SCC 463 particularly Paragraph-31 which is as follows:-

“31.……the e-tickets do not contain the complete conditions of carriage but incorporate the conditions of carriage by reference. The interested passengers can ask the airline for a copy of the contract of carriage or visit the website and ascertain the same. Placing the conditions of carriage on the website and referring to the same in the e-ticket and making copies of conditions of carriage available at the airport counters for inspection is sufficient notice in regard to the terms of conditions of the carriage and will bind the parties. The mere fact that a 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.”

10. Mr. Bhowmik assisted by Sri Amit Saha, Ld. Counsel while supporting the judgment impugned in the instant appeal would contend that the learned District Forum did not commit any error while passing the judgment, rather the learned District Forum had given specific reasons in its impugned judgment, particularly, in Paragraph No.10 and 11. He further submits that the e-tickets do not contain the complete conditions of the carriage, but incorporate the conditions of carriage by reference. He also submits that if the passengers i.e. the petitioners did not appear in time, then how the IndiGo Authority issued the boarding pass in favour of them and also booked the luggage where the materials for infant were kept. He again submits that this is not the first case where the IndiGo-opposite party harassed the passengers like the petitioners, even a passenger like Dr. Bikas Roy, a President Awardee was also harassed, for which he filed a complaint case and later came to this Commission in Appeal Case No.A.42.2017 wherein this Commission observed that there is no doubt that a passenger is bound by the terms and contract of carriage, but the Airlines Authority also should have helped the passengers adequately so that they can entered into the aircraft, particularly, he relied upon the Paragraph-10 and 11 of the judgment in A/42/2017 [Dr. Bikas Roy and another Vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd. (IndiGo) and another].
11. We have gone through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment. The facts of the case in Interglobe Aviation Ltd. (supra) are totally different than the case in hand. Thus the said Law Report has no application in the instant case. We have also gone through the evidence of petitioner no.1 Sri Atanu Saha. In his evidence, he has stated in short regarding the facts of the entire incident of their journey and the mode of harassment by the opposite parties. There is no doubt that a passenger is bound by the terms and contract of carriage, but here in the instant case, question is not regarding the terms and contract of carriage, but to inadequate help and harassment caused to the petitioners though they admittedly reported to the boarding counter in time and the IndiGo Authority also issued the boarding passes in favour of them. Had the petitioners not reported in time, then obviously the IndiGo Authority could not have issued the boarding pass in favour of them. In Paragraph No.10 and 11, the learned District Forum has given its reasons for passing the impugned judgment which are as follows:-

“10. We have gone through the boarding pass issued in favour of the 6 petitioner. It appears that boarding pass was issued at 8.15 AM. Departure time was 9AM. So 45 minutes before departure boarding pass was issued. In the boarding pass it is clearly written that boarding gate will close 45 minutes before the departure time. So the petitioners were supposed to complete the security check and go before the gate within 20 minutes after receiving the boarding pass. They are to appear before the gate by 8.35 AM. According to Indigo version they reported after 8.35 AM. Petitioner stated that they reported at 8.30 AM. Boarding gate was not supposed to close as others passengers availed the journey. Definitely they might have reached after 8.35 AM.

11.  The plea of the petitioner is that the Indigo official did not help them and the security personal in the gate also did not render any help for going before the gate. Petitioner in the examination in chief stated that it was 8.30 to 8.45 hours for security checks. So their appearance before the gate was after 8.35. as per Condition of Carriage passenger are not allowed to board the flight for arrival. The boarding pass was subject to some terms and conditions. Surprisingly the Indigo staff did not render any help after issuance of boarding pass when Boarding pass was issued then indigo official and staff should render adequate help to the passenger so that they could go before the gate in time. That help was not rendered. The security personal were not Indigo official. But the Indigo official could request them for early check in the security so that the passenger could reach before the gate in time. It is also improper service by the Indigo staff who sent one luggage to Agartala though passenger were not allowed to travel. Without that luggage containing the food and other articles of the baby petitioner suffered. On the next date Indigo authority arranged the flight of all the petitioners from Kolkata to Agartala on payment of difference. According to petitioner they had to pay Rs.24,460/- for the journey of 6 passengers from Kolkata to Agartala. For the latches and deficiency of service of Indigo petitioner suffered. We considered that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation and refund of the air fare they paid on 12.01.17 amounting to Rs.24,460/- for their sufferings they are also entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.15,000/-. For litigation cost they are entitled to get Rs.5,000/-. In total they are entitled to Rs.44,460/-. Direct the O.P. Indigo to pay the amount of Rs.44,460/- to the 6 petitioners within 2 months, if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.”  

After going though the aforesaid paragraphs of the impugned judgment as well as the judgment passed by this Commission in A/42/2017 Dr. Bikas Roy (supra) we are of the considered opinion that the learned District Forum did not commit any error while passing the impugned judgment. Thus no interference is called for.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

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

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura