Delhi

North East

CC/355/2015

Deepak Kr. Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Air India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Aug 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 355/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Deepak Kumar Gupta S/o Tejpal Gupta R/o L-18/1, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-110032.	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	The Manager Air India Ltd. Airlines House 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj, New Delhi-110001   Manager Commercial Air India Pvt. Palam Airport, Terminal-1 New Delhi-110037.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

22.09.2015 21.08.2019 21.08.2019

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Succinctly put, facts giving rise to the present complaint are that the complainant had booked three Air Tickets from Delhi to Mumbai on 24.01.2014 with OP operated flight bearing No. AI657 for travel date 01.04.2014 for himself and his parents and paid a sum of Rs. 8,496/- for the aforesaid tickets and was issued E-tickets numbers 092108752911 to 092108752913. The schedule time of departure was 7:00 AM from Delhi. As per instructions mentioned in the itinerary receipt on the E-ticket, AI flight number ranging from 010-399 and 900-999 shall depart from international terminals and since complainant’s flight number was 657, not falling within the aforementioned number range, he alongwith his parents reached domestic terminal of Delhi Airport at 05:45 AM i.e. 1hour 15 Minutes prior to departure time but was told there that his flight would depart from international terminal T3 and therefore he rushed alongwith his parents rushed to T3 and reached there at 06:10AM where on the 2^nd floor, check in process was going on. However the officer-in-charge of OP did not allow the complainant’s family to check in saying that the check in time was over at 06:15AM whereas the complainant reached the check-in counter at 06:23AM. The complainant went to OP office requesting them to allow his family to travel to Mumbai as he was well in time before departure and there was no mistake or negligence on his part and it was only due to instructions made in the itinerary receipt, he misunderstood the departure terminal and did not know that domestic flight would depart from international terminal apart from assuming that his being a domestic flight would depart from domestic terminal. The complainant complained to OP station T3 APT but got a rejection letter from manager of OP at Delhi Airport rejecting his complaint on grounds of late arrival for check in. The complainant urged that it was an unintentional mistake caused due to misunderstanding created by printing instructions in itinerary receipt incomprehensible for a common man. The complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of OP claiming entitlement for indemnification for the Air tickets booked and expenditure incurred in transportation, legal expenditure and undergone mental tension. The complainant submitted that he had to get his return train tickets from Mumbai to Delhi via Garib Rath Train for 04.04.2014 cancelled and also incur taxi expenditure for return from Delhi Airport to his residence at Shahdara, Delhi. Therefore, complainant incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 11,996/- for tickets, train tickets cancellation and to and fro journey from residence to airport and back. Complainant issued a legal notice through counsel to OP on 07.05.2014 calling upon OP2 pay the aforesaid amount within 15 days of receipt of this notice however the OP instead sent replies dated 26.06.2014 and 09.07.2014 thereto through their counsels D.R. & Associates and Suri & Co. respectively rejecting the demand of the complainant and denying his claims alleging concealment and suppression of true and material facts and fabrication of false evidence to cause wrongful gain to self. The OP further refused to grant refund of the price of the tickets on ground of ‘No Show’ on booked flight as the residual value of E-class ticket being negligible, transfer to another flight was not possible except on payment of ‘No Show’ charges. The complainant vide response thereto through counsel dated 23.08.2014 falsified the ‘No Show’ allegation and reiterated his grievance. However, no response came forth from OP. Lastly, complainant submitted that there was no fault on his part to be blamed for ‘No Show’ by OP on the booked flight since he was misled by the contents of the itinerary receipt printed on the foot of the Air ticket issued by OP which prevented him from going directly to international terminal from his residence instead of going to domestic terminal. Therefore vide the present complaint the complainant has prayed for issuance of directions against the OP to refund the cost of Air tickets amounting to Rs. 8,496/- alongwith Rs. 3,000/- as transportation by taxi charges, Rs. 500/- towards train ticket cancellation charges and pay compensation of Rs. 16,000/- towards mental harassment and litigation charges totaling Rs. 27,996/- (figure corrected vide application under order 6 Rule 17 of CPC) to the complainant in the interest of natural justice and equity.

Complainant has attached copy of three Air Tickets issued by OP dated 24.01.2014 in favour of complainant and his parents for undertaking journey from Delhi to Mumbai on 01.04.2014 by flight no. AI657, copy of legal notice dated 07.05.2014 with postal receipts, copy of replies thereto by OP dated 26.06.2014 and 09.07.2014 and counter reply / rejoinder notice by complainant dated 23.08.2014.

2. Notice was issued to OP on 14.10.2015. OP entered appearance and filed written statement in which it took the preliminary objection that no deficiency of service or cause of action has arisen in the present complaint and no negligence or mistake has accrued on the part of OP since it is an admittedly case of ‘No Show’ on the scheduled date and time of 01.04.2014 as the complainant never reported on time and therefore cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs and acts of omission and commission. The OP urged that the complainant is highly belated, sham and bogus, having being filed after more than one and half years of rejection of complainant’s claim in April 2014 itself and also in reply through legal counsel dated 26.06.2014 after which there was no action taken by him and the present complaint is an afterthought. Per contra, the OP contended that the itinerary receipt of E-ticket clearly and categorically mentioned Departure Terminal 3 in the box of Departure and therefore complainant should/could not have any confusion whatsoever relating to departure of the flight from international terminal T3. OP mentioned that entire domestic operation of its flights had been shifted to T3 from November 2010 and reiterated that transfer to another flight was not possible for complainant holding economy ticket without payment of ‘No Show’ charges. OP further contended that vide its letter dated 03.04.2014, complainant was duly informed that the check in counters close 45 minutes before time of departure and therefore the time for check-in in this case was 06:15 AM (for 07:00 AM departure) but complainant reported for check in at the counter at 06:23AM when the check in counter had already been closed at the above mentioned time as per guidelines and therefore it was not possible for any passenger to be accommodated after 06:15AM about which the complainant was already apprised of. OP further submitted that complainant has been assuming and presuming things and wrongly stating that he had reached international terminal at 06:10AM despite which he was denied check in when he himself had admitted that he had reached there at 06:23AM when check in counter was already closed and therefore is guilty of fabricating false allegations liable for prosecution under Section 340 Cr.PC read with Section 193 IPC. OP further pointed out that the complainant has himself admitted in Para 3 of his complaint that he had ‘misunderstood departure terminal’ and was therefore a ‘No Show’ on the booked flight. OP defended itself by submitting that it had not been negligent in providing services and has been diligent in performing duties in as much as complainant has himself admitted in Para 4 of his complaint that he had duly receive reply from OP to his complaint lodged with it that he had reached late at the Airport for check in and was therefore declared as ‘No Show’ and not issued boarding pass. OP denied allegation of complainant of having reached the airport at 05:45AM or becoming victim of negligence in printing of ticket as malicious, mischievous, fraudulent and fabricated. OP submitted that complainant is not entitled to any refund or compensation for taking benefit of his own wrongs as compensation sought is fraudulent and figment of wild imagination. OP lastly urged that it has acted bonafide, in good faith and in discharge of its duty and obligations and the faulty entirely lies with complainant being ‘No Show’ for having misunderstood departure terminal of the scheduled flight and then reporting late for check in and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with prosecution of complainant under Section 340 Cr.PC R/w Section 193 IPC for filing false and bogus complaint.
3. Rejoinder in rebuttal to the defence taken by OP was filed by the complainant in which the complainant reiterated his grievance and laid stress on the foot note of the itinerary receipt of E-ticket pertaining to specific flight numbers range, complainant’s flight number not falling within that range for international terminal leading him to assume that the same would depart from domestic terminal. Complainant submitted that the itineiry receipt which caused the misunderstanding was the only source of information about the flight terminal and had there been a mention in it that all domestic flights irrespective of the numbers range given on the foot note would depart from international terminal, the complainant could have easily reached there at 05:55 AM as the travel time from domestic to international terminal is 10m minutes by taxi. Complainant in rebuttal to OP’s averment of all its domestic operation having being shifted to international terminal since November 2010 stated that it was nowhere printed in the itinerary receipt and had it been so, complainant would have gone directly to international terminal.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant wherein he exhibited the documents relied upon / filed alongwith the complaint in addition to complaint dated 01.04.2014 made by him with Duty Manager of OP at the T3 station vide acknowledgment number 063 as exhibit CW1/B and reply thereto by OP dated 03.04.2014 as exhibit CW1/C stating that for the flight departure at 07:00 AM, the check in counter closes 45 minutes before the departure time after which no boarding passes are issued and on enquiry, it was found that complainant having reported at check in at 06:23AM was accordingly denied boarding as the deadline was 06:15AM.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP sworn by its Manager Commercial in reiteration of the defence taken in the written statement and exhibited the copy of cancel tickets and replies dated 26.06.2014 and 09.07.2014 to legal notice of the complainant.
6. Written arguments were filed by both the parties in reassertion of their respective grievance / defence. Complainant submitted that contrary to OP having given ‘No Show’ as a reason for non refund of the ticket fare, ‘No Show’ means the passenger did not reach the Airport whereas in the present case the complainant did reach the Airport but admittedly became 8 minutes late due to mistake in the itinerary receipt. Further complainant submitted that though admittedly, the tickets show the departure from T3 but it does not specify whether it is domestic or international terminal and the same should have been clearly explained in the foot note alongwith other requisite instruction such as baggage allowance etc. OP on the other hand emphasize upon complainant’s own presumption that his flight would depart from domestic terminal whereas itinerary receipt bearing E-tickets issued on 24.01.2014 for the said flight clearly and categorically prescribe under the Head Departure- Terminal 3. Further OP argued that complainant admitted to have reached the check in counter at 06:23AM and also admitted to have misunderstood the departure terminal and that he had received response from OP dated 03.04.2014 to the effect that since he had reached late at the airport for check in, he was declared ‘No Show’.              
7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and have thoroughly perused the documentary evidence placed before us and arguments advanced by counsels of both sides.

It is not in dispute that the three flight tickets for Delhi to Mumbai via AI657 flight were booked by the complainant with OP on 24.01.2014 for sum of Rs. 8,496/- for journey planed for 01.04.2014. However the entire dispute pertains to the itinerary information at the foot note of the E-ticket on the second asterisk wherein flight number range from 010-399 and 900-999 were given for departure from international terminal. On the same ticket though, against the block of departure terminal 3 is mentioned for DEL-Delhi. The complainant claims to have been misled by contradictory / conflicting information on the E-ticket which ultimately resulted in late reporting by 8 minutes at the check in counter of OP at 06:23 AM instead of 06:15 AM for 07:00 AM flight for which reason the complainant was declared ‘No Show’ and denied boarding and as well as refund. It is evident and apparent on bare perusal of the ticket with block boxes under the heads Date, Flight, Departure, Time, Arrival, Time, Class and Bag that respective details of each head are mentioned underneath then which are sufficient for knowledge / information of flier taking the said flight which is the reason why they are very prominently written on the E-ticket due to which we do not find ourselves in agreement with the argument of the complainant of having been misled by the information given on the foot note compelling him to go to a wrong terminal and thereby having wasted time in reporting for check in at the scheduled time i.e. 45 minutes before departure. For the sake of argument, there is a contradiction / difference between the baggage allowance in the E-ticket Head Bag and itinerary foot note as the former states 15 Kgs and the latter states 23 Kgs but the same has not been raised by the complainant but for clarification the said difference is for domestic allowance and international allowance. Moreover, the argument of complainant that he is not aware whether T3 is international terminal is totally un-acceptable since it is in public domain and in wide spread knowledge of public at large and he belongs to educated strata of society. Complainant has admitted to have reported late for check in by 8 minutes i.e. at 06:23 AM instead of 06:15AM so any defence taken on that ground of not being a ‘No Show’ is not maintainable in view of set guidelines of Airline Rules for passenger reporting time for domestic flights.

After due appreciation of the facts and documents placed before us we are of the considered view that the complaint is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs with observation that “sicutere tuo ut alienum loedas” i.e. a person is held liable at law for the consequence of his negligence which is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.  File be consigned to record room.
10.   Announced on 21.08.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member