ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OP) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for the deficiency in service in not allowing the complainant to board the flight through he was well in time and for a direction to provide the flight details of G8-395 to depart on November 19^th 2016 indicating the seat number allotted to the complainant, to declare that over booking of the flight by OP amounts to unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, and for refund of Rs.17,962/- spent towards flight booking, flight ticket with another flight due to default of the OP in not allowing to board the flight and for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony harassment, frustration suffered and also for suffering for loss of reputation due to act of OP and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; the complainant is a practicing advocate. OP is a registered company operating low cost airlines in India.  Complainant booked a ticket from Bangalore to Mumbai on 10.08.2016 for a journey on 19.11.2016 at 7.30 am. Since booking in advance reduces the flight cost he booked well in advance.  The flight ticket was issued in an electronic mode.  He was to visit Mumbai on that day to attend Global Citizen Festival conducted to raise the fund to create awareness for health issues, poverty, hunger, education and women employment. A few weeks prior to the scheduled journey, OP unilaterally changed the timing of the flight from 07.30 to 8.10 hours. On 18.11.2016 he attempted to web check-in to the said flight. Inspite of several attempts, he could not web check in due to technical issues.  Since he was not having any check in baggage and was having only a cabin baggage which did not required to be dropped off at the check in counter at the airport, he preferred for a web check-in which could not took place. 

3.     On 19.11.2016 he reached the Bangalore airport and went to the counter go air check-in counter within time.  He went directly to the KIOSK machine to get the print of his boarding pass. Since there was no point in standing in the queue to get the boarding pass.  OP has not provided KIOSK facility for the benefit of the passenger and hence he had to stand in the queue to get the boarding pass.  There was no announcement at all regarding their flight. Since it was only 7.25 am he did not try to gorge forward. In the check in counter there were elderly citizens standing in the queue. 

4.     One Mr.Anoop NS was in the ticket counter he was happily discussing with various topics with his fellow employees and took his own sweet time to issue boarding passing to the passengers. As the complainant reached the checkin counter to his utter surprise and shock, he was informed that the boarding pass will not be issued to the complainant since the cut off timing for reporting i.e. 45 minutes prior to the departure timing is over. Complainant informed Mr.Anoop that he is in the Q and requested him to provide the boarding pass.  There was no absolutely announcement made for the passenger of the said flight and also regarding closure of the counter. 

5.     He believes that the possible closure of issuing the boarding pass was due to over booking of the flight.  He informed Mr. Anoop that he cannot be put to hardship for no fault of him.  Non-issuance of boarding pass was clearly unjustifiable and has put the complainant to stress and agony.  Mr.Anoop asked the complainant to speak to the manager incharge since it was only the manager who can take the decision to allow the complainant to board the flight. He went to OP’s sale counter to request the manager to provide him the boarding pass. One Mr Kadam flatly refused to his request even though he was apprised off the entire situation. He begged and pleaded with the manager of OP and also informed that if he could not make it to the airlines gate before the closure due to the time taken during security check, he will own the responsibility and for consequences.  Even though the decision of the giving the boarding pass was with the manager of OP, he did not provide the same.  He was engaged with other passenger who were angry with him regarding check in baggage problem.  He was visibly frustrated with the passenger and hence he did not pay any concern to his complaint. 

6.     During the said time, someone from OP staff informed that in case he had a web check in, he would have been given a print out a boarding pass even less than 45 minutes from the time of departure.  Since he did not get the web check in, he could not avail the said facility. There seems to be over booking of the flight. He made efforts at the airport to find a ticket to Mumbai.  This caused extreme embarrassing pain hardship for him. There was no direct flight available to Mumbai till 4.30 pm on that day. There were many instances wherein OP who was issuing boarding passes to various other passengers who arrived even after 45 minutes of the schedule departure. The rule has been relaxed in their favour. At last he could get a flight ticket in the jet airways to go to Mumbai via Chennai.  Which was to depart at 1050 am to reach Mumbai at 2.55 pm he had to pay additional Rs.17,462/- to purchase the ticket. The entire money of his savings has gone to the purchase the ticket which completely defeated the object of booking the ticket at a low price much earlier. 

7.     When he disclosed that he is an advocate and wanted to complaint against airline, the attitude of the OP entirely changed. He believes that there is a ploy made by OP to make money out of over booking.  First of all, the flight was over booked and his ticket has been given to some other persons.  And further, increasing the rate of the flight ticket. The act of OP is very unfair. Even OP refused to receive the complaint and hence he kept it on the counter.  He was also informed by OP that all the grievances have to be given to go airline on its web site which was not functioning properly. Had the web site functioned properly he could have sent the same. If the rules were being strictly followed regarding the time schedule for issuing boarding pass, than they must have a seat empty in the said flight.

8.     Afterwards, he was informed by OP team that to make up for a flight he will be accommodate in Mumbai flight to commence at 4.30 pm. Since he was to attend the Global Citizen Festival 2016 at 4 pm, it was too late for him to travel in the said flight. Hence he had to book a flight in the jet airways flight by paying Rs.17,462/- and cancelled his ticket. Inspite of all the wrong doing by OP he was purchased enough to inform OP regarding cancellation of the flight. However OP did not even showed basic curtosy to inform that to entitle for refund. Hence he had to issue a legal notice to the OP. The conduct of OP has been malicious and with mala fide intention which is clear regarding the unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint. 

9.     Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the forum and filed the version contending that the allegations made against it in  the complaint is false.  This forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. 

10.   It has admitted that complainant booked a ticket with OP on online, it has specific terms and conditions and as per the same any dispute has to be raised in the courts at Mumbai. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the same. Complainant has included the airport office at Bangalore just to create some semblance of jurisdiction at Bangalore, complainant has to restrict territorial jurisdiction to Mumbai and complainant is bound to initiate any action in the Mumbai and cannot seek relief at Bangalore.

11.   The complainant reached the boarding counter late.  It is made clear that the ticket holder has to arrive 60 minutes prior to the departure and that the counter closes 45 minute before the departure. All the airline and their checking staff a set of free flight procedure that has to be strictly followed several minutes in advance to maintain the schedule. The procedure also consists of security checks, random secondary checks and subsequently boarding procedure which necessitates closures of check in counter. 45 minutes prior to departure. The staff cannot accept any passenger who is late which if accepted would delay the departure of the aircraft which causes inconvenience to the other passenger and takeoff other airlines and such being the case, complainant cannot seek advantages of his own wrong. The staff were doing their duty as per the procedure.

12.   It has denied the contention of the complainant that, the flight was over booked and that the airlines has sold his ticket to some other 3^rd party for a higher cost and that is why he was not allowed to board the flight by denying boarding pass. It is contended by the airlines that Op flight G8 -395 took-off the Bangalore airport on that day with one seat vacant.  The said airbus is having a capacity of 180 seats. In pursuance of the email of the complainant the ground staff manager Amol Kadam sought information as to whether all seats were occupied on the said flight. It was confirmed to him by the ground staff that the flight took off with passengers and there was only with one seat vacant. In view of this, there is no truth in the say of the complainant that the flight was over booked and in order to accommodate by somebody, for a higher ticket price, complainant was denied the boarding pass. The staff at the counter cannot accept a late traveller as it would delay the departure of the aircraft. 

13.   The complainant in view to strengthen him claim, is resorting to false and untenable averments and allegations against the staff.  It is not a situation wherein the complainant arrived on time and he was unreasonably and unlawfully denied the boarding pass.  Complainant came late in the check in counter. When that being the case, he cannot take advantage of his wrong.  The rules and procedure has been adhered to the complainant and to other passengers. There is no discrimination on its part.  Complainant was offered to fly to Mumbai in the next flight of the OP as an alternative.  Complainant exercised his personal choice and chose not to avail that option and voluntarily spent Rs.17,462/- in JET AIRWAYS  to fly at 10.50 am. There is no fault that can be attributed to the OP. The flight was not over booked.

14.   It there was an intention of overbooking the flight and selling the ticket of the complainant for an higher amount, then there would ought to have been full capacity of the flight. Whereas there was one vacant seat in the said flight which departed the airport to Mumbai.  If the music party to which complainant was to attend and it was important for him, he ought to have arrived at the counter well in time before the closure of the check-in counter. As he was late, the claim that an alternate flight was unavailable to enable him to reach the music concert on time he is absurd.  It has admitted the email correspondences but has not admitted any deficiency in service provided to the complainant.

15.   As the complainant arrived late to check-in, disentitle, him to get the boarding pass, as they have adhere to the strict preflight procedure. Inspite of it, the complainant has resorted to file this complaint.  There is no unfair trade practice and over booking of the tickets and the same to be proved strictly.  This forum lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and hence prayed the forum to dismiss the same.

16.   In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether this commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint?

2) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

17.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT No.1:    IN THE AFFIRMATIVE

POINT NO.2 & 3 :    IN THE NEGATIVE.

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT NO.1:

18.   OP has taken the contention that, since it has its head office at Mumbai , complainant out to have filed this complaint in the Consumer Commissions /in the Civil Courts at Mumbai as it has been mentioned in its correspondences and the tickets. Hence, contended that this commission has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

19.   It is to be noted here that the complainant is resident of Bengaluru and booked the ticket in Bengaluru and the flight to Mumbai on that day is to originate from Bengaluru Airport.  It is the contention of the complainant that he was in the Q at the check-in counter well in time and inspite of it, OP did not allow him to check-in and issue boarding pass. For which he raised the complaint with the manager of the Airport. When this is taken into consideration the entire cause of action has taken place in Bengalure and this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon’ble High Courts have held that parties cannot decide their own court for litigation. The law of the land has to prevail. Under the Consumer Protection Act the complaint is perfectly maintainable where the OP resides or were the cause of action either in part or in entity has taken place. In view of this the contention of OP in this regard cannot be accepted. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 

POINT No.2 & 3:-

20.   We have perused the complaint, version, documents produced and also the affidavit evidence adduced by both the parties. It becomes clear that the complainant booked an air ticket with OP to fly to Mumbai on 18.11.2016.  According to him, the web check in was not available to him. Though he tried for it.  Whereas as per the answers given by the Op to the interrogatories the web check in was introduced in 2015 itself.  When such being the case, when the complainant not at all having any baggage he could have very well checked in through web facility that he has not done.

21.   As per the documents produced and the affidavit evidence given by the manager of OP the said flight departed with 179 seats out of 180 seats. When this is taken in to consideration the say of the complainant that the flight was over booked and in order to accommodate to some other person to fly in the flight for unlawful gain by OP, is not and cannot be acceptable.  Otherwise if such an allegation is true, then there would have been full capacity of the seats in the flight. 

22.   It is made clear by the OP that the complainant came to the check in counter at 7.35 am instead before 7.30 am as the flight scheduled to takeoff at 8.10 hrs.  When such being the case, in the absence of any evidence to show that the complainant was within the time schedule i.e. within 45 minutes prior to the departure of flight, he ought to have checked in which he did not do so. Hence the denial of boarding pass to him by OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service and also there is no supporting documents and evidence to show that the OP has practiced unfair trade practice in over booking the flight and selling the ticket to a higher price to other passengers.

23.   In the decision rendered by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigara, First Appeal No.463/2018 at Para 31, it is held that: “So far as the liability of Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 is concerned, the District Forum has held in para No.12 of the impugned order as under:-

“12. However, with regard to the liability of Indigo Airlines i.e. opposite parties No.2 & 3 the plea of opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 is that no doubt the complainant booked an air ticket from Delhi to Amritsar for travel on 05.06.2016 on Indigo Flight No.6E-129 and the scheduled time of departure was 5:40 p.m. As per terms and conditions of the Indigo CoC article 8.1 the Indigo recommends that customers reports for check in at least 2 hours prior to the departure of the schedule flight and the check in closed 45  minutes prior to the scheduled departure of the flight. The scheduled time of departure for Indigo  Flight No.6E-129 was 5.40 PM and the complainant was advised to report before 45 minutes prior to the scheduled time i.e. before 4.55 p.m. But, however, the complainant failed to report to check in counter for Indigo Flight No.6E-29. Therefore, inter Globe Aviation was compelled to treat the complainant as “No Show” in accordance with the Indigo CoC. As the Indigo flight was not connected with Air India Flight, so it was not the responsibility of the indigo flight to wait for the passengers of any other flight, if any, technical fault occurs in the Air India Flight as both the flights are not connected with each other.”

24.   So also, the decision relied on by the complainant in Original Petition No.80/1997 decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Dr. Arun Jain Vs Thai Airways International Ltd. In respect of the passenger reporting in check in counter after the prescribed time.

Hence we answer POINT NO.2 IN THE NEGATIVE. In the result complainant is not entitle for any of the relief as prayed in the complaint  and answer POINT NO.3 ALSO IN THE NEGATIVE and pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.

2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 16^th day of December 2021)

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the event ticket.

Ex P2: Copy of the ticket

Ex. P3 &  P4: Copy of the ticket purchased for another flight.

Ex P5: Copy of the letter issued by OP.

Ex P6: Copy of the reply

Ex P7 : Copy of the email correspondences.  

Rs.3,00,000/- and 18.05.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/-

Ex P6: Copy of email correspondences

Ex P7: Copy of the Legal notice

Ex P8: Postal acknowledgement

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri Shreenath Srinivasan, Legal Executive of OP.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the Board Resolution issued to General manager Legal.

Ex R2: Copy of the letter of Authority issued by GM legal.

Ex R3: Copy of the Terms and conditions regarding check-in reporting time.

Ex R4: Email Correspondences.

Ex R5: Copy of No Show Certificate.

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

RAK*