DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC – 19  of  2018

 

Sri Raja Chaudhuri,

S/O- Lt. Nonigopal Chaudhuri,

Kunjaban Colony, P.O.- Abhoynagar, 

P.S.- New Capital Complex,

West Tripura. .....…...Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Indigo Airlines,

Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapar House,

  124, Janpath, New Delhi- 110001 India

(Represented by its Managing Director).

 

2. General Manager,

Indigo Office Address:-E-World, 

Anupama Market, Close to VIP Road,

Kolkata- 700052.

 

3. Airport Authority of India,

Rajib Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi-110001,

(Represented by its Managing Director).

 

4. General Manager,

Airport Authority of India, 

Netaji Subhash Chandar Bose 

International Airport, Kolkata - 700052.      …......…......Opposite Parties.

 

5. The In-charge of

'Ultra Bar',

Situated at Netaji Subhash Chandar Bose

International Airport, Kolkata- 700052.      ….....Proforma Opposite Party.

 

 

 

__________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 & 2 : Sri Debalaya Bhattacharya,

  Sri Kushal Deb,

  Advocate.

 

For the O.P. No. 3 & 4 : Sri Bhaskar Deb,

Smt. Sujata Deb(Gupta),

Sri Bikram Paul,

Saikat Rahman,

  Advocates.

 

 

JUDGMENT   DELIVERED   ON:   27.01.2020

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant,  Raja Chaudhuri, 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 on 1st August, 2016 the Complainant along with his friends went to Kolkata for medical treatment and tour. As per the pre-scheduled  program the complainant and his friends booked their return flight by Indigo flight no- 6E374 from Kolkata to Agartala on 25th August, 2016. The complainant along with others reached at the Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport Terminal on 25th August, 2016 at 1550 hours for taking the flight. On completion of reporting formalities at the counter and on obtaining boarding passes the complainant and his friends entered the security check-in area and were waiting for boarding of the fight. As there was enough time the complainant and his friends went to the bar situated in the security lounge area and took hard  drinks. Thereafter he and his friends visited one shops situated in the security lunge area including 'Biswa Bangla'. During purchasing of goods from 'Biswa Bangla'  an altercation took place with the staff of the said shop. They had misbehaved with them. At that time staff of Indigo Airlines also arrived there but instead of helping the complainant they also started to misbehave with him and his friends. The Indigo staff did not allow him and his friends to board the scheduled flight on ground that they had consumed liquor. The complainant alleged that he was in sound state of mind and was in normal condition to take the flight. The Indigo Airline staff without any medical examination of him had arbitrarily denied him to board the flight. The complainant further asserted that the entire security hold area was under CC camera surveillance and that he had asked for supplying him copy of the CC TV footage but the O.P. Airport Authority of India (O.P.No.3) denied to furnish him such copy showing security reason. 

Being aggrieved with the conduct of the O.Ps the complainant has filed the instant complaint praying for compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. 

Hence, this case.

 

2. Based on the complaint notices were duly sent to the O.Ps from the Forum. Except the O.P. No.5 all the O.Ps have appeared through their engaged advocates and contested the case by filing written objections separately. 

The O.P. Airport Authority of India in the written objection denied the contentions of the complainant and sated that burden lies on the complainant as to what type of liquor had been consumed by the complainant and whether the complainant was capable of taking care of himself. It is also stated by the said O.P. that CC TV footage could not be supplied to the complainant on security reason.

The O.P. Indigo Airlines also in his statement denied and disputed the claim and contentions of the complainant. The O.P. stated that Conditions of Carriage is available in the Airport Counter and also in the Website and that as per Terms of Conditions of Indigo CoC it is clear that the Indigo Aviation Authority has the right to deny boarding to any passenger who is under the influence of liquor. It is further stated in the written objection that if the Indigo Airlines is of the opinion that the passenger conducts himself aboard the aircraft so as to endanger the aircraft or to any passenger or property on board causing discomfort, inconvenience, damages or injury to other passengers, Indigo may take such measures as it deems reasonable and necessary to prevent continuation of such conduct. According to the O.P. such customer may be disembarked and refused onward carriage at any point and may also be prosecuted.  

Denying any deficiency of service towards the complainant the O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCE BY THE PARTIES:-

Although the complainant has submitted his statement on affidavit but he did not come forward to be cross examined though he was allowed several opportunity by the Forum for being cross examined.

On behalf of the O.P. Indigo Airlines 2 witnesses have submitted their statement on affidavit. 

 

4. FINDINGS  AND DECISION:

We have heard arguments from both sides. We have also gone through the pleadings of both sides. The complainant according to us in order to prove his case ought to have deposed before the Forum and faced cross examination by the O.P. side. It is the cardinal principle of law that the complainant is to prove his case by adducing documentary as well as oral evidence. The complainant according to us has failed to discharge his onus to prove his case.

 

5. In view of the above, we find and hold that the Complainant has failed to make out a case against the O.Ps U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 

 

    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