BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
(DISTRICT FORUM)
NORTH TRIPURA : KAILASHAHAR
C A S E NO. C. C. 18/3
SHRI DULAL ACHARJEE
son of late Ramendra Acharjee
of R.K. Mission Road,
PS – Dharmanagar,
District – North Tripura
…......COMPLAINANT.
V E R S U S
1. THE MANAGER,
INDIGO (International Aviation Limited)
Global Business Part, Gourgawn,
Harina, India – 700052
2. GO-FLY TOUR AND TRAVELS
Travel agency,
Nayapara, Kadamtala Road,
Dharmanagar, North Tripura
….....OPPOSITE PARTIES
P R E S E N T
SHRI P. K. DUTTA
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
UNAKOTI DISTRICT::KAILASHAHAR
A N D
SMTI. S. DEB, MEMBER
SHRI P. SINHA, MEMBER
C O U N S E L
For the complainant : Shri Deepak Sharma, Advocate
For the OP : Heard ex parte
ORIGINAL DATE OF INSTITUTION :16-05-2018
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON :01-05-2019
J U D G M E N T
This is a complaint presented by the complainant Shri Dulal Acharjee U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties praying for getting compensation for deficiency of service by refusing him to board on the flight run by Indigo Aviation Company from Kolkata to Agartala on 17-05-2016.
2. The case of the complainant, as narrated in the complaint petition, is that on 18-03-2016 the complainant purchased 4 nos of indigo flight tickets for himself, his wife Smti. Jayanti Acharjee, his son Soubhankari Acharjee and his daughter Soheli Acharjee from GO-FLY TOUR AND TRAVELS, Travel Agency, Nayapara, Kadamtala Road, Dharmanagar, North Tripura with a view to coming from Kolkata to Agartala on 17-05-2016 being departure at 0850 hours and arrival at Agartala at 0945 hours. Accordingly, on the date of journey the complainant along with his family members arrived in the aerodrome at the schedule time and after observing all formalities they got boarding pass and security check up was done accordingly and after that the complainant along with his family members was allowed to go for boarding to the flight. When the complainant and his family members were about to enter into the flight, at that time the security of the last gate asked them to return back as the flight is about to start. Being puzzled they requested the flight authority to take necessary step so that they can avail their journey, but they behaved roughly with them and dragged and compelled them to return back. They noticed that the flight waited for more 20 minutes to take off. Thus, because of this strange behaviour and conduct the complainant and his family members could not reach Agartala on that day. As such, on that day they were compelled to stay in the aerodrome incurring huge expenditure in sleepless night, for which they suffered mentally, physically and financially. Under that circumstances the complainant again had to purchase 4 nos of tickets as earlier tickets were invalid for an amount of Rs. 29,456/-. It is further contended in the complaint petition that the complainant requested the authority to adjust the said amount of Rs. 12,030/-, the amount of earlier cancelled tickets, but that was not done. Next day the complainant and his family members returned to Agartala by flight No. 6E-861. Thus, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 41,486/- for financial loss, Rs. 2,000/- for staying charge in the aerodrome and Rs. 4,00,000/- for mental and physical sufferings.
3. On receipt of the notice none of the OPs appeared and ultimately vide order dated 13-02-2019 it was ordered that the case would proceed ex parte against the opposite parties.
4. The complainant has adduced his evidence as PW 1 recapitulating the facts as narrated by him in his complaint petition and as such, for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition evidence of the complainant is not discussed. However, during his re-examination the complainant has exhibited the following documents:-
1. Flight tickets dated 17-05-2016 for 4 persons in one sheet, marked Exbt. 1.
2. Four nos. of boarding cards dated 17-05-2016 marked Exbt. 2/1 to 2/4
3. Xerox copy of air tickets dated 18-05-2016 for four persons in one sheet is marked Exbt. 3.
4. Xerox copy of boarding cards in two sheets marked Exbt. 4/1 and 4/2.
5. Smti. Jayanti Chakraborty(Acharjee) has also been examined as PW 2 on behalf of the complainant and in her examination in chief she has supported the version as put up by the complainant in the complaint petition as well as in his examination in chief.
6. The only point required to be determined in the case at hand is to whether there is gross deficiency on the part of the O.P. No.1 in not boarding the complainant and his family members in the flight bound for Kolkata to Agartala by its flight on 17-05-2016 and whether the complainant is entitled to adequate compensation in regard thereto?
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
7. In spite of receiving notice either of the opposite parties has appeared to contest the case, though both of them were served notice properly. O.P No.2 is a travel agency from which the complainant procured ticket for journey from Kolkata to Agartala on 17-05-2016 by flight No. 6E-861 which was scheduled to take off at 08.50 (Exbt.1). From Exbt. 2/1 to 2/4, boarding cards, it is found that the four tickets bear the seal of Security check DTB and as such, it can safely be presumed that the ticket issued by the OP No.2 in favour of the complainant is genuine, otherwise the complainant and his family members were not issued boarding cards. Therefore, it is simultaneously held that O.P. No.2 has rendered no deficiency of service and by not appearing before this Forum it is not found to be deficient in service in any way.
In the complaint petition the complainant has alleged that he and his family members were not allowed to board in the flight on 17-05-2016 even after security check was over and they were in the queue to board the flight. This is really astonishing and surprising. For what reason the complainant and his family members were denied to board on the flight even after security checking was over being genuine passengers is not discovered, but facts remain that the complainant and his family members were not allowed to board on the flight after discharging all formalities. As the OP No.1 has not come forward before this Forum with its explanation, this Forum is not in a position to know the real state of affairs, but Exbt. 1 and Exbt. 2/1 to 2/4 genuinely prove that the complainant and his family members were valid passengers for the flight No. 6E-861 bound for Kolkata to Agartala on 17-05-2016 run by the OP No.1. It is further found from the complaint petition and from the evidence that the complainant requested the flight authority to arrange their boarding, but nothing was done and the complainant and his family members were straightway denied though the flight took off after 20 minutes. As the complainant and his family members could not come to Agartala on 17-05-2016, they had to stay in the aerodrome office by expending Rs. 2,000/- and passed the whole night in great turmoil. Under compelling circumstances, the complainant had to procure four new tickets for journey on the next day on 18-05-2016 from the company of the OP No.1 for an amount of Rs. 29,456.00. The complainant requested the OP No.1 to adjust the earlier amount of Rs. 12,030.00 as ticket fair for journey on 17-05-2016 as they denied to perform the journey on 17-05-2016, but then too no adjustment was done and complainant had to pay the whole amount of Rs, 29,456.00. As the complainant and his family members being genuine passengers were denied to perform the journey on 17-05-2016 by flight No. 6E-861, for the reason only known to the OP No.1, OP No.1 ought to have arranged journey of the complainant and his family members either in the next flight or on the next day, but the OP No.1 did not do this and here OP No.1 being a service provider has not rendered the required service to the complainant and his family members as consumers and as such, the OP No. 1 has obviously been found as grossly deficient in service to the complainant and his family members. Therefore, in considered view of this Forum OP No.1 should be adequately penalized being deficient in service for not rendering service to its consumers.
8. The complainant has prayed for awarding Rs. 41,486.00 as ticket fair, Rs. 2,000/- as lodging charge in the aerodrome and also Rs. 4 lacs for mental and physical sufferings. In the evidence complainant as PW 1 has stated that he has submitted the original air tickets dated 18.05.2016 along with boarding cards in his office for getting reimbursement of the bill. In the evidence, the complainant has not stated that he has not paid the reimbursed amount and as such, it is assumed that the complainant has been paid Rs. 29,456.00 and as such, for ticket cost complainant is only entitled to Rs. 12,030.00 for his journey on 17-05-2016. For staying charge in the aerodrome on 17-05-2016 the complainant has claimed Rs. 2.000/- and it is accordingly allowed. Since the complainant and his family members being genuine passengers could not avail themselves of the journey on 17-05-2016 only because of the whim of the OP No.1, of course they were greatly shocked mentally and obviously underwent pain and sufferings, for which this Forum awards Rs.20,000/- for pain and sufferings. OP No.1 is the Indigo, Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. It is a reputed airway run in home and abroad and from such a reputed Company, the conduct and the dealings appear to be really dismal, unexpected and unthinkable, for which OP No. 1 should be penalized at hefty amount and this Forum on appreciation of overall aspects imposes a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 44,030.00 (Rupees forty Four thousand and thirty only) to be paid by the OP No.1.
Complainant is not entitled to any other relief.
The issue is decided accordingly.
ORDER
9. In the result, it is ordered that the complainant is entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 44,030.00(rupees forty four thousand and thirty) from the O.P. No.1. O.P. No.1 is directed to pay the amount to the complainant within two months from today with 7 % interest per annum with effect from 16-05-2018, i.e from the date of institution of the complaint, failing which the complainant is further entitled to interest at the @ 9 % p.a. from the O.P. till the date of actual payment .
The case stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
10. Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant and O.P free of cost through their respective learned counsels.
ANNOUNCED
(P. K. DUTTA)
PRESIDENT
(S. DEB) (P. SINHA)
MEMBER MEMBER
