DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 327 of 2022.

 

1. Shri Pradyot Bhaumik,

S/O. Late Gopal Chandra Bhaumik,

Of Ramnagar Road No.1, South Lane -2,

P.O.-Ramnagar, Agartala,

P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist. -West Tripura, Agartala- 799002,…..…..................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

   1) The Chief Executive Officer(CEO),

Airlines, Headquarters Corporate Office Level-1, 

Tower- C, Global Business Park Mehraul-Gurgaon Road,

Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, India. 

 

2. The Associate Vice President & Head,

(Airport Operations and Customer Service), 

Indigo Airlines, Southern India, Bengaluru, 

Kempegowda International Airport, Devanahalli, KIAL Road, 

Bengaluru Airport, Bangalore-560300. 

 

3). The Airport Manager,  

Indigo Airlines, Agartala Branch,

Maharaja BirBikram International Airport, 

Agartala-799009.......................................................Opposite Parties.

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : In-person. 

 

For the O.Ps. : Sri Kushal Deb,

  Sri Dipankar Das,

  Sri Monoswaee Dey,

  Advocates. 

 

FINAL ORDER  DELIVERED  ON: 04/05/2023.

F I N A L     O R D E R

1. This is a complaint U/S. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act filed by Shri Pradyot Bhaumik pleading inter alia that he purchased Air ticket for himself and for his wife for travelling from Bengaluru to Agartala on 18/05/2022 by Indigo Airlines on payment of Rs.17,898/-. They started for Bengaluru Airport in time at 6.30 am but due to traffic congestion as a result of water logging by rain water the Complainant had to divert rout. Apprehending delay in reaching Airport, the Complainant at 0910 hrs. contacted Indigo Customer Care over telephone to appreciate the matter, but to no good. Ultimately the Complainant and his wife reached the Airport and went for reporting. But the Indigo Authority declined to consider the matter on the ground that reporting time was over although the schedule flight No.6E 524 was yet to take off. Now, the Complainant apprised the Indigo Executive who was In-charge, the serious ailments of the Complainant and his wife to accommodate them in the next available flight but such humanitarian request was also not heeded to. Rather, the Indigo Authority insisted to buy new tickets for next available flight.      

Under such compelling circumstances the Complainant had to buy two new tickets for travelling from Bengaluru to Agartala at 1.40 P.M. on that day by the same Airlines at a cost of Rs.20,998/-. 

After a while a group of other passengers who also arrived the Airport late for travelling from Bengaluru to Agartala placed their strong demand to accommodate them in the same flight No.6E 524 the ground Executive who had turned down the request of the Complainant accommodated those passengers in the next available flight on payment of Rs.2,500/- as extra charge.  

 The Complainant took up the issue again with the ground Executive as to why the Complainant was not accommodated although the group of passengers who arrived in the Airport, later then the Complainant were accommodated but in vain. At 1206 hrs. the Complainant reported entire episode to the customer care only to get reply that only the airport ground authority could consider such matter in exercise of discretionary power. Hence, this complaint for compensation and other reliefs. 

  The O.Ps. in written statement particularly in Para-25, 30 & 31 pleaded that the Complainant did not request for accommodation in the next available flight rather, booked new tickets at 9.31 hrs. In Para-30 the O.Ps. took the stand that after departure of the flight No.6E 524 at 10.05 hrs. the Complainant and his wife were declared 'No Show'. 

6.      In Para- 31 the O.Ps. pleaded inter alia  that the  Complainant purchased new tickets at 09.31 hrs. even before departure of the original flight and request for re-accommodation was made after the departure of the flight at 10.05 hrs. And the Complainant was informed re-accommodation in the same flight on payment of Rs.2,500/- like other passengers who had also arrived late due to water logging and consequent traffic congestion and were accommodated in the next available flight. But the Complainant had already purchased new tickets. 

7.  Both the sides submitted evidence on affidavit with documents particularly the Complainant submitted Air tickets and some medical documents showing serious illness of himself and his wife. 

8.    During the course of argument the Complainant argued that Para-25 of the written statement that the Complainant never requested for re-accommodation in the next available flight and purchased new tickets at his own, proves to be wrong in view of Para -30 and Para -31. Per contra, Learned Counsel of the O.P. strenuously argued that Para – 30 and Para – 31 prove the fact that the Complainant purchased fresh tickets at his own without contacting the Ground Executive and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

9.  The following points emerge for discussion whether :-    (a). Whether the Complainant purchased fresh tickets at his own without contacting ground executive? 

  (b).  Whether the ground authority exercised their discretionary power judiciously in not accommodating the Complainant and his wife in the next available flight on payment of extra charge of Rs.2,500/- whereas other passengers were accommodated?                                                                                                                                          

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-

10. Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision. 

11.     The only point of difference is whether the Complainant and his wife were not accommodated in the next available flight on payment of extra charge of Rs.2,500/- when such discretionary power was exercised in case of other passengers who also arrived late and in fact later than the Complainant. In fact the answer of the point No.1 is hidden in point No.2. 

12.  According to the O.P. the Complainant decided to make a fresh booking at 9.31 hrs. as pleaded in Para- 25 of the written statement. In Para- 26 of the written statement it is pleaded that at 09.46 hrs. the O.Ps. received a phone call from Mr. Nirmal to provide wheelchair to the Complainant which was complied by the O.Ps. Mr. Nirmal is an official of Indigo Customer Care Service with whom the Complainant contacted for help after being late in arriving the Airport due to water logging of road and consequent traffic congestion. Further it is pleaded in Para- 28 that all the passengers who arrived late were declared 'No Show' and later on were provided the option of re-accommodation on payment of Rs.2,500/- but the Complainant did not avail that offer. 

13.    In Para - 31 of the written statement it is pleaded that the offer of re-accommodation was made after the departure of the original flight at 10.05 hrs. 

14.    This part of the pleading and evidence of the O.Ps. is not believable for the reason that the Complainant arrived in the Airport much ahead of the other passengers who were also declared 'No Show' and were offered accommodation in the next flight on payment of extra charge of Rs.2,500/-. Admittedly the Complainant first contacted Mr. Nirmal an official of the Indigo Airlines for help as the Complainant was late due to natural calamity. And Mr. Nirmal informed the O.Ps. to provide wheelchair to the ailing Complainant and his wife. Mr. Nirmal advised the Complainant to contact ground staff of the O.Ps. for accommodation in the next available flight as the reporting time of the original flight was over. Therefore, the preponderance of probability is in favour of the Complainant that he made request to the ground staff for so such re-accommodation, but in vain. Rather, other passengers who also reached late in the Airport in a group put pressure on the ground staff for re-accommodation which had to be accepted by the O.Ps. And thereby the Complainant was not re-accommodated which is why under compelling circumstances the Complainant had to purchase fresh ticket at a rate of Rs.20,988/- for two ticket and thereby he had to pay (Rs.20,988/- - Rs.5,000/-)= Rs.15,988/- extra.  

15.    In addition to that the Complainant and his wife being patient of pancreatitis and cancer respectively, suffered mental pain and stress which is quiet natural. As such the O.Ps. exercised their Discretionary Power in favour of other passengers by arranging re-accommodation in the next available flight on payment of Rs.2,500/- per ticket and such discretionary power was not exercised in favour of the Complainant under same circumstances on the same day and for the same flight. Hence, such exercise of discretionary power was arbitrary hence, not acceptable by any standard. As such the O.Ps. are guilty of deficiency in service. On the top of it, the Indigo Airlines ground staff were legally and morally bound to inform the Complainant that they could be re-accommodated in the next available flight on payment Rs.2,500/- per ticket.    

16.  Both the points are decided accordingly in favour of the Complainant. 

17.  In the result it is ordered that the O.Ps. shall return the excess amount of Rs.15,988/- to the Complainant and also shall pay Rs.80,000/- i.e. (Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/-) to the Complainant for deficiency in service to the Complainant and his wife and consequente mental stress which they had to suffer for arbitrary exercise of discretionary power. Both the amount has to be paid within 30 days from today otherwise both the amount shall carry interest @ 7.5 P.A. from 09/05/2022 i.e. the date of journey till the date of actual payment. The O.Ps. are jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award.                               

          Supply a certified copy of the order to both the parties free of cost.        

 Announced.

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.