DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 20 of 2019

 

1. Manir Miah

S/O. Kudduch Miah

 

2. Runa Akter

W/O. Manir Miah

 

3. Miss Shamina Akter(Aged about 3 ½ Years)

D/O.-Manir Miah,

All are resident of village Rajnagar, Agartala,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist.-West Tripura

(Being the minor the Petitioner No.3 is represented by her natural guardian i.e. father Petitioner No.1)…................................................................................................Complainants.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The Chief Executive Officer

Indigo Airlines,

Indigo, Head office/Corporate office, Indigo,

Level-I Tower-C, Global Business Park,

Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road,

Gurugram 122002, Haryana.

 

2. The Manager,

Indigo Airlines,

Kamraj Domestic Airport Terminal 1,

New Building, Mezzanine Floor,

Meenambakkam, Chennai-16.

 

3. The Branch Manager,

Indigo Airlines,

Agartala Airport, P.O.-Airport,

Pin-799009.

 

4. Mr. Rahul Kumar, 

Central Wing, Ground Floor, 

Thapar House, 124, Ganpath,

New Delhi and Corporate office at 

Tower C, Level 2, Global Business Park, 

M.G. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002........................................................... Opposite parties.

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

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 Complainants : Sri Kishor Kr. Pal

  Sri Dilip Ch. Nath,

  Advocates.

For the O.Ps.  : Sri Debalay Bhattacharya,

  Sri Kushal Deb,

  Sri Subhankar Deb,

  Advocates.  

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  26/10/2021.

J U D G M E N T

The Complainants Manir Miah & others set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service by the O.Ps.

Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant along with his wife and his minor child went to Chennai Apollo Hospital  on 12/01/2019 by availing Indigo Flight for the purpose of medical treatment of the Complainant. As per pre-scheduled return journey to Agartala, the Complainant with his family reached at Chennai Airport on 27/01/2019 at about 9.00 A.M. Then after production of their ticket and their respective identity card boarding cards were issued to have travel on Indigo Flight No.6E-892 from Chennai to Kolkata on a 27/01/2019 schedule for departure at 11.35 A.M. After obtaining boarding pass they were waiting in front of gate No.12 as indicated in their boarding pass. They were waiting for the announcement. But there was no announcement. It was about 10.45 A.M. They wanted to know from the staff who was standing in front of gate No.12 as to the status of their Flight No.6E-892. In response to their query the said staff told that the door of Indigo Flight No.6E-892 is closed and they are not allowed to board the flight. Immediately they rushed to the Officer-in-charge of Indigo Airlines who were present in the office situated at the Airport and reportedly requested to the Indigo staff for arranging them to board the flight But they refused to allow them to board in the flight when it was about 10.50 A.M. Though the schedule departure of the flight was 11.35 A.M. Thereafter, the petitioner was given following option to the O.P. (a) to arrange an alternative Indigo flight, even by taking additional cost (b) refund of airfare, but they straightway refused to permit to undertake the journey of the next flight nor return any money. The O.P. took one ticket from the petitioner for returning their luggage. The luggage was handed over to them after about 2 ½ hours and one ticket of Samina akter was kept by the O.P. and in spite of request it was not handed over to them rather said that it is a proof of return of the luggage by the O.P. On that day they could not return to Agartala. They had to stay in a hotel situated on Grimes Road in front of Apollo Hospital and on the following day the Complainant purchased fresh tickets on payment of Rs.26,545/- and returned to Agartala by Indigo Flight. The complainant issued a letter to the O.P. No.1 demanding compensation of Rs.3,29,719/-. The O.P. No.1 however replied to the notice. The complainant having not satisfied with the reply has filed the present complaint before the Forum/Commission claiming compensation of Rs.3,29,719/-  under different heads namely cost of Flight Fare Rs.21,719/-, hotel charges and transportation cost Rs.5,500/-, Compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for deficiency of service, Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and harassment and loss of comfort Rs.50,000/- & Rs.50,000/- for loss of reputation as could not perform his tuition work.     

Hence this case.

2. On the other hand O.Ps. contested the case by filling written statements. 

        In the written statements the O.Ps. submitted para-wise reply to the complaint in seritem. Mostly, O.Ps. denied the disputed and averred that the instant complaint is false and concocted and it is liable to be dismissed. 

    The O.Ps. in their written statements / written version stated that the Complainants have not adhered to the boarding time lines as stipulated under the Indigo CoC which was purely on account of their own defaults and negligence. There was no deficiency of service on the part of Inter Globe Aviation Limited. The Complainants have not provided any evidence to prove that they were at the boarding gate as alleged. So, the Complainants on account of their own defaults and negligence failed to adhere to the boarding time lines and failed to reach the boarding gate within the mandated time lines. Therefore, Inter Globe Aviation Limited was constrained to declare the Complainants as “No-Show”. 

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

3. Complainant No.1, Manir Miah & Complainant No.2, Runa Aktar examined themselves as PW-I & PW-2 respectively and they have submitted their examination in chief by way of affidavit. They submitted 9 documents comprising 14 sheets and documents were marked as Exhibit – 1 Series. Pws. were cross examined by the side of the O.Ps. 

              One witness namely Shri Rahul Kumar working as Associate General Counsel gave his examination-in-Chief on affidavit on behalf of the O.Ps. He was not cross examined as it is a summary trial.        

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

      (i) Whether the Complainants reported the boarding gate in time? 

     (ii) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps towards the Complainant?

    (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for? 

5. ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES :-

        We have heard arguments of both sides.

        At the time of argument, Learned Counsel of the Complainant submitted that the Complainant along with his wife and his minor child went to Chennai Apollo Hospital  on 12/01/2019 by availing Indigo Flight for the purpose of medical treatment of the Complainant. As per pre-scheduled return journey to Agartala, the Complainant with his family reached at Chennai Airport on 27/01/2019 at about 9.00 A.M. Then after production of their ticket and their respective identity card boarding cards were issued to have travel on Indigo Flight No.6E-892 from Chennai to Kolkata on a 27/01/2019 schedule for departure at 11.35 A.M. After obtaining boarding pass they were waiting in front of gate No.12 as indicated in their boarding pass. They were waiting for the announcement. But there was no announcement. It was about 10.45 A.M. They wanted to know from the staff who was standing in front of gate No.12 as to the status of their Flight No.6E-892. In response to their query the said staff told that the door of Indigo Flight No.6E-892 is closed and they are not allowed to board the flight. Immediately they rushed to the Officer-in-charge of Indigo Airlines who were present in the office situated at the Airport and reportedly requested to the Indigo staff for arranging them to board the flight But they refused to allow them to board in the flight when it was about 10.50 A.M. Though the schedule departure of the flight was 11.35 A.M. 

           On the other hand Learned Advocate Mr. Kushal Deb submitted that the Complainants had not adhered to terms and conditions of the carriage known as 'Indigo conditions of carriage-Domestic' (hereinafter referred to as”Indigo CoC”). Complainants have also not adhered to the boarding time lines as stipulated under the Indigo CoC and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Mr. Deb further submitted that Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. was constrained to declare the Complainant as “No-Show”. Mr. Deb in support of his submission relied upon a decision of the Apex Court decided in Civil Appeal Nos.778-779/2020 the Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata Vs. Smt. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Others. Mr. Deb at last submitted that complaint is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed. 

 

    6. DECISION   AND  REASONS  FOR  DECISIONS:- 

Both points are taken up together for the convenience.

We have carefully gone though the pleadings and evidences adduced by the parties. 

There is no dispute in respect of issuing of boarding card to the Complainants in respect of Flight No.6E892 to travel by Indigo Flight from Chennai to Kolkata on 27/01/2019 scheduled for departure at 11.35 A.M. Complainant No.1 Manir Miah in his examination-in-Chief on affidavit stated that according to their E-ticket terms and conditions the closing time was 45 minutes prior to schedule of departure i.e. on 10.50 A.M. He further deposed that after obtaining boarding pass they were waiting in front of gate No.12 as indicated in their boarding pass and they were waiting for the announcement but there was no announcement. He further deposed that at about 10.45 A.M. they wanted to know from the staff who was standing in front of gate No.12 as to the status of their Flight No.6E-892. In response to their query the said staff told that the door of Indigo Flight No. 6E-892 is closed and they are not allowed to board the flight. In cross examination PW-1, Manir Miah stated that they were waiting near the gate No.12 at Chennai Airport and they waiting for announcement for boarding of the flight. Suggestion was made that on 27/01/2019 at about 11.23 A.M. they intent to enter in to the boarding gate which was just 12 minutes after closing of the boarding gate and that the O.P. Indigo Airlines had rightly denied their boarding in flight No.6E-892. 

On the other hand OPW-1, namely Rahul Kumar deposed that Complainants on account of their own defaults and negligence failed to adhere to the boarding time lines and failed to reach the boarding gate within the mandated timeliness. Therefore, Inter Globe Aviation Limited was constrained to declare the Complainants as “No-Show”. In his examination-in-Chief Rahul Kumar further deposed that the relevant clause of the Indigo CoC which govern the boarding of passengers and in order to maintain schedules, the boarding gate will be closed 25 minutes prior to the departure time. The customers must be present at the boarding gate not later than the time specified by Indigo when they check in or any subsequent announcements made at the Airport. Any customer failing to report at the boarding within the aforesaid timeliness shall be treated as a “Gate No Show” and the ticket amount for such booking shall be forfeited by the Company. Mr. Rahul Kumar further deposed that Chennai Airport is a silent Airport and there is no provision for making announcements at the Airport. Complainants were fully aware of the boarding timeliness and solely due to their own negligence failed to report on the boarding gate on time. Mr. Rahul Kumar further deposed that in order to trace the No-Show Passengers, the staff of Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. made manual announcements at the boarding gate area. On that day out of 179 passengers only 170 nos. of passengers reported on time and successfully boarded the flight. 

On appreciation of the evidences of both sides, it is very much clear that Complainants failed to report the boarding gate in time and they were declared as “No-Show”. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment(Supra) decided that the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency of service committed by the ground-staff of the Airlines of the Airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the Complainants and if burden of proof would shift on the O.P. only after the respondents / Complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service. In the instant case the Complainants failed to discharge their burden. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment at Para 18 observed that “Concededly, it is the primary obligation of the passenger who has been issued boarding pass to undergo the security-check procedure and reach at the boarding gate well before (at least 25 minutes before) the scheduled departure time. From the evidence of the O.P. we found that the Complainants were declared as “No-Show”. 

So, we are in the considered view that Complainants had failed to proof the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed and no costs. 

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

     Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

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.