DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 356 of  2022

 

Sri Sujit Saha,

S/O- Lt. Sridam Chandra Saha,

Dhaleswar, Road No.5,

P.O. Dhaleswar, P.S. East Agartala,

District- West Tripura- 799007. ...........Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The Nodal Officer(Indigo),

 

2. The Customer Relation Officer,

M. G. Road, Gurugram, Haryana- 122002,

India.

 

3. The Airport Manager (Indigo),

 

    __________PRESENT__________ 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Opposite Parties: Sri Kushal Deb,

 

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. Sujit Saha here-in-after called “the Complainant” has lodged this complaint alleging inter alia  that during the Covid -19 pandemic period he took 3 air tickets under Indigo Airlines to travel from Agartala to Chennai on 24th October, 2021. Accordingly, they reported in the Airport and handed over their baggage. But while proceeding towards security checkup he was informed that Sayantan Saha, the minor son of the complainant was not entitled to fly on special offer i.e., “Vaxi Fare Offer” which was floated during the pandemic period, for which reason that Sayantan Saha being below 18 years old was not vaccinated although at the time of booking of online Air tickets the age of Sayantan was divulged as 13 years old. 

1.1 Situated thus, being compelled the complainant had to deposit Rs.21,296/- to the counter at MBB Airport, Agartala and flight number and schedule of travelling was also changed from 4.10 P.M  to 7 P.M. for which they reached Chennai at 9.30 P.M. Thereafter, the complainant served Legal Notice upon the O.Ps.

 

2. The O.Ps in para- 7 of their written objection pleaded that the itinerary was sent by mail on the same date that this offer was for the persons who were vaccinated for Covid- 19 Virus. Thus, booking was confirmed and in the website it was mentioned that “Passengers are required to carry their Covid- 19 Vaccination Certificate issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Affairs, Govt. of India or  display their vaccination status on the Arogya Setu Mobile App at the  Airport check in counter/boarding gate, failing which applicable differences in fare and charge fee may be charged.” 

2.1 The O.Ps submitted Annexure 3, 4, 5 and 6 in support of their case and in particular Annexure -4 terms and conditions etc. 

 

3. Both the sides submitted evidences on affidavit and documents.   

 

4. Hearing arguments the following points are taken up for discussion and decision:-

 

5. Both the points are taken up together for convenience.

5.1 Admitted facts of this case are that online tickets were booked by the complainant for himself and 2 others including Sayantan Saha who was 13 years old. But the 'Vaxi Fare offer' is only for the persons who were vaccinated. On the date of journey i.e., 24 October, 2021 Govt. of India did not vaccinate citizens who were below 18 years old and this was not a secret to any body including the complainant. Further, an itinerary was sent by mail regarding this offer as to who were entitled to this offer. 

5.2 Annexure- 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 and in particular Annexure- 4 terms and condition No.2 and 3  read as follows:- 

5.3 Meaning thereby, only for the reasons that ticket was issued to Sayantan Saha who was only 13 years old and for the further fact that at the time of reporting in the airport such fact anyhow escaped the notice of the reporting officer/person but before proceeding to security ckeckup, this fact was detected and was brought to the notice of the complainant, it can not be said that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or it was an act of unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. 

5.4 On the top of it, as a responsible citizen the complainant, Sujit Saha has also failed to discharge his duty to bring to the notice of the Authority at the time of purchasing the ticket till he was apprised at the security checkup gate that Sayatan Saha being 13 years old was not entitled to avail the “Vaxi Fare offer”. Meaning thereby, we do not find any merit in the complaint of the complainant as such the complaint is liable to be  dismissed, however, without cost, which we hereby do.

 

6. Both the points are decided accordingly in negative.

7. In the result, the case of the complainant is dismissed, however, without any cost.

8. Supply copy of this Final Order to both the parties free of cost.   

 

 

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.