DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 134 of 2017

 

 

Smt. Dipannita Mog,

D/O. Lt. Monglafru Mog,

W/O. Sri Thailafru Mog,

Resident of Gurkha Basti(Natun Palli),

P.O.-Kathal Bagan, Pin-799006,

District-West Tripura.….....................................................................................Complainant.

 

 

VERSUS

 

1.Indigo Airlines,

Central Wing, Ground Floor, 

Thapar House, 124, Janpath, 

New Delhi-110001, India,

(Represented by its the Managing Director)

Anupama Market, Close to VIP Road,

Kolkata-700052.

 

2. Airport Authority of India,

Rajib Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Air port,

New Delhi-110001,

(Represented by its the Managing Director)

 

3. General Manager,

Airport Authority of India,

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport,

Kolkata, 700052......................................................................Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

4. The In-charge of “Ultra Bar”,

Situated at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport,

Kolkata-700052.......................................................................... Proforma Respondent. 

 

(the Petitioner has made the Respondent No.4 as proforma with a liberty to include it with the main respondent if the said proforma respondent made any statement before the Ld. Court against the complainant). 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI UMESH DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. Dr BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Bhaskar Debroy,

  Sri Pulak Saha,

  Advocates.

 

For the O.P. No.1  : Sri Debalay Bhattacharjee,

  Sri Kushal Deb,

  Sri Subhankar Deb, 

  Advocates.

 

For the O.P. No. 2 & 3 : Sri Bhaskar Deb,

  Sri Bikram Paul,

  Smt. Sujata Deb(Gupta),

  Advocates.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 11/ 02 /2020

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Smt. Dipannita Mog, 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 her children and friends went to Kolkata in the 1st part of August,2016 for tour and medical treatment. The Complainant was scheduled to return to Agartala on 25th August, 2016 at 15.50 by flight No.6E-374. She along with her companions arrived at the Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Terminal, Kolkata in time. After completion of security check, she and her companions entered into the security check in area. Thereafter they were waiting for their scheduled flight. As there was enough time for departure of their flight, the Complainant and one of her friends namely Raja Chowdhury decided to take hard drinks in the Bar situated in the lounge. Accordingly they went to the Bar and consumed liquor measuring 2 pegs of 30 ml each. The Complainant and Raja Chowdhury being accompanied by children of the Complainant thereafter went for shopping there including 'Biswa Bangla' shopping complex. At the time of purchasing of goods from “Biswa Bangla” some alteration took place with the staff of the shop. The staff of the said shop misbehaved with the Complainant and her friend by uttering slang languages. On their call, two staff of Indigo Airlines arrived there and they instead of extending any help to the complainant and her companions, started misbehaving with them. Subsequently Indigo staff did not allow the complainant and her  friend Raja Chowdhury to board the scheduled flight. The complainant alleged that there was no notice board to support that the passenger on consuming alcohol will not be allowed to board the flight. The complainant further alleged in her complaint that the Indigo staff for no plausible cause arbitrarily denied her boarding the aircraft. According to the complainant she was very much conscious and was in normal state of mind and was physically fit to avail the flight like other co-passengers which is evident from the video footage of the close circuit cameras installed inside the security zone area of the Airport.  The Complainant had asked for furnishing her CC footage from the Airport Authority but the Airport Authority i.e. the O.P. Nos.2&3 did not furnish her CC footage on ground of security reason. The complainant also alleged that due to the illegally debarring  her to board the scheduled flight, she could not reach  Agartala on that day. Thus she had to stay at kolkata. She has thus claimed compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- for causing harassment and also litigation cost on account of the deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps.  

Hence this case. 

 

2. In due course of time notices were duly sent to the O.Ps. from the Forum. 

  The O.P. Nos. 1,2&3 in response to the notices appeared before the Forum through their engaged Advocates. 

  The O.P. No.4 did not turn up before the Forum to contest the complaint. The O.P. No. 2&3, the Airport Authority of India filed written statement denying the claim and contentions of the Complainant. The said O.Ps. have stated that the burden lies on the complainant as to what type of liquor was taken by her and whether she was capable of taking care of herself. The O.Ps. further stated that CC footage could not be supplied to the Complainant due to security reason. 

O.P. No.1, Indigo Airlines also filed written statement denying the claim and contentions of the complainant. It is stated by the O.P. that Condition of Carriage is available in the airport counter and also in the website. As per the terms and conditions of Indigo CoC it is clear that Indigo Aviation authority has the right to deny boarding to any passenger who is under the influence of alcohol. If the Indigo is of the opinion that a customer conducts himself aboard the aircraft so as to endanger the aircraft or any person or property on board as smoking or taking alcohol or drug or behave in the manner which causes discomfort, inconvenience, damages or injury to other customers, Indigo may take such measures as it deems reasonably necessary to prevent continuation of such conduct. Such customer may be disembarked and refused onward carriage at any point, and may be prosecuted. It is also stated by the said O.P. that despite being aware of the boarding time lines and consequences for failure to adhere to the same the Complainant did not reach at the boarding gate on time and had been declared “Gate No Show”, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Indigo CoC.

    Denying any deficiency of service towards the Complainant, the O.Ps. urged before the Forum to dismiss the complaint.             

 

EVIDENCE ADDUCE BY THE PARTIES:-

 

3. The Complainant examined herself as PW-I and submitted her examination in chief by way of affidavit. She has produced the original copy of Air Ticket, Advocate's notice, Reply to the Advocate's notice, Copy of the application seeking for RTI information. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series.The complainant also produced statements on Affidavit of her two witnesses namely Raja Chowdhury & Sri Subodha Das . 

  On behalf of the O.P. Nos.2&3 one Sri Sanjib Kr. Roy, Manager(Security)/CSO, Airport Authority India has been examined as witness. 

              It is to be mentioned here that in this case my Predecessor along with the Hon'ble Members of the Forum delivered judgment earlier on 02/07/2018 allowing the complaint. The O.P. Indigo Airlines assailed the said judgment by filing an appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission. The Hon'ble State commission after hearing both sides has set aside the judgment dated 02/07/2018 and remanded the case record to this Forum for deciding the case afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration the additional evidence including video footage of the incident stored in the Pen Drive which is to be produced by the witness of the O.P. Indigo Airlines supplying copy of the Pen Drive to the Complainant before hand for her satisfaction and for cross examining the witness of the O.P. Indigo Airlines in the District Forum.  

On receiving the case record from the Hon'ble State Commission, notices were duly sent to the Complainant and the O.Ps. asking them to appear before the Forum.

In due course of time, the Complainant and the O.Ps. appeared before the Forum through their engaged Advocates. As per direction of the Hon'ble State Commission two witnesses for the O.P. No.1 have been examined namely Sri Rahul Kumar, Associate General Counsel of Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. He has exhibited 07 documents which have been marked as Exhibit-A series. The other witness for the O.P. No.2 who has been examined was Smt. Nandita Bala, Manager-Customer Services, she has produced the Pen Drive as material object as evidence which has been marked as Exhibit-A/1.               

 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

  (i) Whether the Complainant was under the influence of liquor to endanger security of the Aircraft belonging to the O.P. No.1 and thus rightfully denied boarding the Aircraft by the staff of the O.P. No.1?

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

 

5. DECISION   AND  REASONS  FOR  DECISIONS:- 

      We have heard arguments from both sides. We have also perused the written arguments submitted by the complainant and also by the O.P. No.1 and that of the O.P. Nos.2&3 respectively. 

We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties, the evidence, both documentary and oral adduced by both sides.

It is evident from the Statements on Affidavit of the Complainant and her both witnesses that although the Complainant had consumed liquor from the Bar situated at the security lounge of the Airport, she was physically and mentally fit to take the flight to Agartala on 25/08/2016. 

We find that the O.P.  Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. in order to support their case has adduced and examined two witnesses namely Sri Rahul Kumar, Associate General Counsel of Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. and Smt. Nandita Bala, Manager-Customer Services. Smt. Bala has produced and exhibited the Pen Drive wherein the whole incident that had occurred in the security hold area involving the Complainant and her companion Sri Raja Chowdhury. Smt. Bala had recorded the entire incident through her mobile set and stored it in the Pen Drive under Exhibit-A/1. 

After conclusion of arguments of this case on 13/11/2019 we(myself & the Hon'ble two Members) have examined the 03 video clippings of the Pen Drive(under Exhibit-A/1) on the computer desktop in the chamber of the President, District Forum West Tripura in presence of Learned Advocates for the Complainant and the O.P. Nos.1,2&3.  After careful examination of the video clippings we do not find the Complainant having indulged in unruly behavior under the influence of liquor.  

We further find that there is no other convincing evidence on record to infer that the Complainant was under the influence of liquor and was incapable of taking care of herself. Even the complainant was denied entry in to the Aircraft after security check though at the eleventh time she was possessing valid boarding pass with her. We are of the considered opinion that the visual depiction of the alleged intoxication and misbehavior on the part of the Complainant as produced on record by the O.P. Indigo Airlines is insufficient since a medical examination was not conducted on her to support such allegations. The Forum believes that the complainant was denied boarding purely on the basis of assumption of prospective misbehavior, if any on board in the Aircraft. It further deserves mention here that on record neither there has been any complaint raised by the CISF on duty nor any protest raised by the co-passengers of the flight No.6E-374 against the complainant. 

We are of the opinion that the Complainant could not avail the flight for no fault of her. She had to stay at Kolkata for two more days. She suffered a lot. She had purchased a fresh Air Ticket and could return to Agartala on 28/08/2016 by Spice-Jet Flight No. SG-278. We find that the Complainant made to suffer both mentally and financially due to the deficiency of service of the O.P., Indigo Airlines. She is thus entitled to get compensation from the O.P. No.1.

In view of the discussion made above, we find and hold that the Complainant has succeeded in establishing her case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We find the O.P. No.1 guilty of committing deficiency of service towards the  Complainant. The complainant is entitled to get compensation / relief.

Both the issue framed in this case are decided in favour of the Complainant  and against the O.P. No.1. 

In the result, we direct the O.P. No.1 to pay Rs.3,500/-  being the cost of Air fare borne by the Complainant for her journey from Kolkata to Agartala by Spice-Jet Flight No.SG-278 on 28/08/2016. We also direct the said O.P. to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment apart from litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.  The Complainant is thus entitled to get in total Rs.23,500/-(Rs.3,500 + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) from the O.P. No.1 The payment is to be made within 2 months from the date of judgment, if not, it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full.

 

    Announced.

 

SRI  BAMDEB  MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

SRI  UMESH  DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA