Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/89

Dr. Sajal Kanti Deb. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Indigo Airline Agartala office,Agartala(IXA) & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Choudhury.

08 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 89 of 2014

             Sri Sajal Kanti Deb,
             S/o- Late Matindra Kumar Deb,
             Rabindra Palli Lane, Agartala,
             District- West Tripura.            .........Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______
            
1. The Manager,
Indigo Airlines Agartala Office,
Agartala(IXA),
Agartala Airport,
Narsinghar, Agartala,
District- West Tripura.

2. The Managing Director,
    Interglobe Aviation Ltd. (Indigo),
    Level 1, Tower C, Global Business Park,
    Mehrauli- Gurgaon Road,
    Gurgaon - 122 002

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant             : Complainant in person.
                       
For the Opposite Parties         : Mr. Navneet Anand,
                      Advocate.
                  
                  

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : -  08.09.15

 

J U D G M E N T     

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act) filed by the complainant, Dr. Sajal Kanti Deb of Rabindra Palli Lane, Agartala against the O.Ps, namely the Manager, Indigo Airlines, Agartala Airport and another over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant booked 2 air tickets from the local travel agent on 10th May, 2014 for travelling from Delhi to Agartala on 16th may, 2014 by Indigo Airlines flight no- 6E 273. On his arrival at New Delhi Airport on the date of travelling, he was allotted a boarding pass. As there was heavy rush at the security check-in counter, there was delay in arriving at the boarding gate. The ground staff of the O.P. Airlines did not allow him to board the flight on the ground of late arrival at the boarding gate. Since there was no other flight from New Delhi to Agartala on that particular date, he was compelled to purchase a fresh ticket for 17th May, 2014 for his journey from New Delhi to Agartala. For that matter, he had to spend an additional amount of Rs.5428/-. Inspite of his repeated requests, the O.P. Airlines did not refund the price of the ticket. The complainant made several correspondence with the O.P. Airlines but it evoked no response. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.P. Airlines constituted negligence and deficiency in rendering service. Hence, this complaint.

3.        The complaint was contested by the O.P. Airlines, stating, interalia, that as per terms of the 'Conditions of Carriage',  a passenger is required to report for check-in at least 2 hours prior to departure of the schedule flight and check-in counter closes 45 minutes prior to the schedule departure of the flight. Any passenger reporting after such time is denied boarding. As per clause 7.2 of the 'Conditions of Carriage' the boarding gate is closed 30 minutes prior to the departure time. Since the complainant reported to the boarding gate beyond 30 minutes prior to the schedule departure of the flight, he was denied boarding. The ground staff of the O.P. Airlines as a good will gesture offered a re-accommodation in next available flight on 17.05.14 on re-accommodation charges plus the fare differences just in a way to safe the entire ticket amount from being forfeited and the same was accepted by the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant was denied to board the flight because he did not act in consonance with the conditions of carriage. It is denied that the O.P. Airlines was deficient in rendering service to the complainant in any manner whatsoever. 

4.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents;
    Exhibit 1 Series- 2 Air tickets dated 16th May, 2014 and 17th May, 2014,
    Exhibit 2 Series- 2 boarding passes,
    Exhibit 3- E-mail dated 31.05.14,
    Exhibit 4- Demands notice dated 24.07.14.
5.        On the other hand, one Sri Navneet Anand, Authorized representative of the O.P. Airlines, has examined himself as O.P.W. 1 . No documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the O.P., Airlines.
        
FINDINGS:-
6.        The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding is;

        (i) Whether the O.P. Airlines was negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant. 

7.        We have already heard arguments advanced by the complainant in person and the learned counsel appearing for O.P. Airlines. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the parties meticulously.

8.        There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant reported to the boarding gate to avail the Agartala bound Indigo Airlines flight no- 6E 273 on 16th May, 2014 beyond 30 minutes prior to the schedule departure of the flight. In the pleading itself, the complainant clearly stated that the cause of late arrival at the boarding gate was due to heavy rush in security check-in counter. It goes without saying that the 'Conditions of the Carriage' are binding upon the parties. Cluase 7.2 of the 'Conditions of Carriage' says that ''in order to maintain schedules, the boarding gate will be closed 30 minutes prior to the departure time. The customers must present at the boarding gate not later than the time specified by Indigo when they check-in.''
         Clause- 7.3 of the said rule lays down that Indigo will not be liable to the customer for any loss or expenses incurred due to their failure to comply with the provisions of this Article.

9.        The passenger travelling in the Indigo Airlines flights are bound to follow the said rules. The O.P.W.1, Navneet Anand in his examination in chief by way of affidavit stated that the complainant reported to the boarding gate at 6.00 am when the schedule time of departure of the flight was 6.10 am in violation of the terms of carriage. This fact has not been disputed by the complainant while cross examining  the O.P.W. 1.  No body is above the law. If any passenger violates the boarding rules as stipulated in the conditions of carriage, certainly the O.P. Airlines has the right to refuse carriage.

10.        During cross examination of O.P.W.1, a  suggestion was  put to him by the complainant that at the time of check-in he requested the ground staff to render him assistance to board the flight he being a cancer patient. The complainant did not state this fact either in his pleading or his examination in chief by way of affidavit. Since this plea is beyond pleadings, it is to be ignored.

11.        It is the assertion of the complainant that the reason for his late arrival at the boarding gate was because of heavy rush at the security check-in counter, for which he could not complete the security formalities in time. As per terms of conditions of carriage, a passenger is required to check-in at 2 hours prior to the departure of the schedule flight and check-in closes 45 minutes prior to the schedule departure of flight and any passenger reporting after such time is denied. Such provisions are made in the 'Conditions of Carriage' by the authority keeping in mind that sufficient time may be spent in completing the security check-in formalities. The O.P Airlines has no control over the security matter within the airport area. The security matter of the airport is absolutely looked after by the CISF personnel. In this background, the O.P. Airlines can not be blamed for late arrival of the complainant at the boarding gate. There is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant could not report to the boarding gate at the schedule time due to the lapses of the O.P. Airlines. In absence of which, no charge of negligence and deficiency in service can be attributed to the O.P. Airlines. It appears from the pleadings that the complainant was offered a re-accommodation in the next available flight on 17.05.14 on re-accommodation charges plus fare difference of Rs.5428/-to save the entire ticket amount from being forfeited. As a good will gesture the O.P. Airlines did not forfeit entire amount of ticket though the rules empower them to do so. As alleged, the complainant has failed to establish his plea that there was Indigo Airlines flight from Delhi to Agartala on 16.05.14 itself other than the flight he missed and he was not accommodated in the said flight in spite of availability of seat.

12.        In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that he could not report to the boarding gate in time due to the fault of the O.P. Airlines and hence, no charge of dificiency in service is attributable to the O.P. Airlines and that being so, they can not be fastened with the burden to pay compensation to the complainant.
    
13.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is dismissed on contest being devoid of merit. However, we make no order as to costs.  

    
14.                 A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.