DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC – 117  of   2017

 

      1. Smt. Priyanka Majumder(Debnath),

W/O- Sri Amit Debnath,

 

      2. Miss Roshni Debnath,

D/O- Sri Amit Debnath

 

Residents of:

Town Chanban,

P.S. Radhakishorepur,

Udaipur, Gomati Tripura. ........…...Complainants.

 

         -VERSUS-

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Indigo Airlines,

Agartala Branch,

P.S. Airport, West Tripura.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

Indigo Airlines,

Palam Airport, Delhi,

P.S. Palam, 

District- South West Delhi,

Delhi- 110 045. ........... Opposite Parties.

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

For the Complainant : Smt. Shilpi Chowdhury,

  Advocate.

 

For the O.Ps : Sri Koushik Roy,

  Sri Udai Sankar Singha,

  Sri Koomar Chakraborty, 

  Advocates.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  15.03.2018.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Priyanka Majumder(Debnath) and other u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that she purchased 2 air tickets for journey from Delhi to Agartala on 13.07.16 by Indigo Airlines. She arrived in the airport with her minor daughter in time. Collected the boarding pass entered in the security check-in. She went before the gate in time. Her luggage was also boarded. In the meantime her daughter had to go to toilet to attend natures call. He then returned to gate hurriedly with her daughter. But the Indigo officials refused to take her inside the carriage and stated that she was late before the gate. Her luggage was then unloaded from the carriage. She was left in a helpless condition and also had to stay that day. On the next day on 14th July, 2016 she purchased another airticket paying Rs.24,522/- and came to Agartala. For such harassment, inconvenience, agony she claimed compensation of Rs.2 lacs. 

 

2. O.P. Indigo Airlines appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that as per Terms and Condition of the Carriage petitioner had to appear before gate 30 minutes before the time of departure. She did not comply the direction. So, she is not entitled to get any relief. It is also stated that dispute is to be settled with the Delhi as per terms and conditions. She was allowed to travel from Delhi to Agartala via Kolkata on board Indigo Flight under same PNR on payment of Rs.9,600/-. Indigo  is not liable for any loss of the passenger. On their failure to comply with the provision with the article therefore, the case is liable to be dismissed.

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(I) Whether the petitioner violated the terms and condition of the Indigo carriage rule?

(II) Whether there was deficiency of service by Indigo and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 

4. Petitioner produced the boarding pass, airticket, copy of order from Udaipur District Forum.

5. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness, Priyanka Majumder(Debnath). 

 

6. O.P. on the other hand, produced the Reply of Indigo, authority letter, copy of Indigo Condition of Carriage(domestic).

 

7. On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.

 

Findings and decision:

 

8. We have gone through the boarding pass issued in favour of Priynaka Majumder and her daughter. In the boarding pass it is written that the boarding gate closes 25 minutes prior to departure time. 

 

9. O.P. in the written statement stated that as per Terms and Condition of Carriage 30 minutes before departure passenger is to appear before the gate other wise 'Gate No Show' will be displayed and ticket amount shall be forfeited by the company. In the written statement also however it is stated that ticket amount was not forfeited and on payment of INR Rs.9,600/- complainant was allowed to board the carriage on the next date on 14.07.2016. Vide annexure 'E' it is affirmed that complainant is re-accommodated. O.P. produced no evidence to support that petitioner was late and went before the gate 25 minutes of the departure time.

 

10. Petitioner, Priyanka Majumder in her statement on affidavit stated that on 13.07.16 she reported in the schedule time. Got boarding pass and after security check waited in the lounge for their flight. However, her daughter was in need to go to toilet and when she came before the Exit Gate she was not allowed to enter. She requested the concerned authority as flight was yet to take off but her luggage was unloaded.

 

11. We have gone through the E-tickets and found that departure time was 6.10 AM on July 13th. Arrival time at Agartala was 9.45 AM. O.P. vide Annexure 'D' produced the booking reservation information. From that it is found that 5.51 AM seat removed and at 5.52 AM the luggage was unloaded from the carriage. Departure was 6.10 AM. So luggage was removed before 18 minutes of departure. O.P. did not give any evidence to support that petitioner was found present at any late period. Only it is stated that she was late. But when she attended not stated. 

 

12. In Dr. Bikash Roy case our State Commission held that it is the duty of the airlines to help the passengers so that they can board the flight in time on completion of security check up. In the instant case security check up was completed. There is no iota of evidence to prove that O.P. helped the passengers so that they could board the flight. To attend the nature's call minor daughter might had gone to toilet. But she was present earlier before the gate and she came back before the gate within 5 minutes at best. But she was not allowed to board the flight.   

 

13. In Kalpana Rani Debbarma Vs. Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines appeal case no- A/ 53 /2017 our State Commission held that mere filing the written statement by O.P. can not be considered as evidence. It  has to be proved by adducing evidence. Admittedly, in the instant case O.P. Indigo Airlines did not examine any witness. The terms and condition which are annexed with the reply were neither proved by the O.P. nor accepted. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept the contention of the O.P. Indigo Authority did not make any announcement for the benefit of the complainant. All these are deficiency of service by O.P. Petitioner with the minor daughter suffered a lot. She had to stay at Delhi for one day and on the next day she had to come.

 

14. Her claim for full fare Rs.24,000/- is not justified as because she was re-accommodated by Indigo. The fact is established by the flight information report Annexure 'E'. This excess amount petitioner is entitled to get from Indigo. For one night stay with the minor daughter she had to suffer. For this Indigo is directed to pay compensation Rs.10,000/- for cost of proceeding she is also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- in total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.29,061/-. We direct the O.P. to pay the amount to the petitioner. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

15. In view of our our above findings over the two points we direct the O.P. Indigo Airlines to pay the petitioner Rs.29,061/- within one month if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. Case is disposed accordingly. Supply copy of the order.

 

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA