1. Complainant Aishwarya Roy, of Kolkata, being a student of KIIT College, Bhuvaneswar, booked a ticket of Bhuvaneswar – bound Flight being No. 6E 375 which was scheduled to take off on 06.03.2019 at 07:10 A.M. But she had to reach Bhuvaneswar by another flight at 01:30 P.M. instead of 08:00 A.M. This so happened because on reaching the Dum Dum Airport gate at about 06:30 A.M./06:35 A.M she found the gate closed and came to learn that Flight being No. 6E 375 had taken off at 07:03 A.M. instead of 07:10 A.M. without any intimation to the complainant. Her ticket was accordingly cancelled and she had to catch the next flight by payment additional amount of Rs. 1,000/- and reached Bhuvaneswar in 5:30 hours later than the scheduled time i.e. 01:30 A.M. Consequently, if she missed her class and had to put up with immense trouble and to incur loss of academic career. This is why she sent a legal notice to the OP on 30.04.2019 which unfortunately went unheeded. Under such a compelling situation she had to file this case seeking refund, compensation and other reliefs from the OPs.
2. The OPs have contested the case by filing W/V and BNA etc. It is the specific case of the OPs that they were not guilty of deficiency in service and it is the complainant who was late in reaching the airport at about 06:50 A.M. to see the closed gate. Had she reached the boarding place in time she could have got the flight being no. 6E 375 despite of the fact that the flight took off seven minutes earlier than the scheduled time.
3. Now question arises where the complainant is entitled to relief sought for or not.
4. May it be pertinent to cite here that the Consumer Protection Act is one of the branches for Law of torts as recognized by English Common Law. Like other enactments such as Motor Vehicles Act negligence or lack of due to diligence on the part of the OP as required to be proved in a case under Consumer Protection Act. As per observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported as (2011)  7 – Supreme Court Cases – 463 Airline cannot be held liable to pay damages even if there has been some inconvenience or hardly to a passenger on account of delay until and unless their proved that Airline and Screw have acted in unreasonable and mala-fide manner. Negligence or unreasonableness on the part of the Airline or screw categorically has not been alleged this case.
5. It is in the complaint that the complainant reached the main gate of the Airport before 06:30 A.M. but it is categorically been stated in the W/V of the OP that the gate was closed only at 06:45A.M. and 25 minutes prior to the schedule time of departure. Materials on record including the ticket are sufficient to prove that the gate was closed at 06:45 A.M. Then surely she reached the main gate after 6:45 A.M. she could not have got the flight even it took off at 07:10 A.M. She was late in reaching the airport for which she missed the flight.
6. Five and half hours delay in attending her class only on one day cannot make a student to sustain loss of academic carrier. It may bringing in some inconvenience to her but that may not have enormous impact upon her career. Easily she could have ignored the same considering the length of her study period. Nevertheless we find reason to say that she underwent some inconvenience for her failure to reach the airport at proper time. But we know that all wrongs are not torts. Something more in the form of negligence or unreasonableness on the part of the OP are required to be proved. The complainant who was negligent in the matter of availing of the benefit of the air ticket of 06.03.2019 cannot blame the other. She may not get any compensation from the OPs.
7. Hence, it is ordered that ​the case be and the same is dismissed on contest, but without cost.

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT