Order-10.
Date-20/03/2018.
AUTHOR. RABIDEB MUKHOPADHYAY, MEMBER
The Complainant’s case, in brief, is that the Complainant purchased on 22 February, 2017, confirmed Air Tickets for journey from Kolkata to Bangalore and back at the cost of Rs.15,817/- through Bajaj Agencies Pvt. Ltd., an authorized Agent of Indigo. The Complainant reported at the Airport office on the schedule date of 28 Feb, 2017,at 4.30 a.m., one hour before the departure time 5.30 am to fly on Flight No. 6E-379.
The complainant reported to the officer and collected boarding pass and then entered the security checking gate. After security checking, the security personnel affixed stamp on the boarding pass.
The complainant stated that there was no ground staff reminder for boarding call and only a message was sent through his mobile set while it was being scanned, then the complainant approached towards the gate 23-D for boarding. Suddenly the ground staff announced that boarding on Flight 6E-379 was closed, and no passenger can be allowed and he came to know from the ground staff thatthe Complainant could not avail that flight.
The complainant requested the duty officer and informed the said officer that he hadpurchased valid tickets up and down journey and necessary checking was completed and requested him to allow to avail that flight no. 6E-379 but he refused to allow and asked him to go to Bangalore on the evening flight. As a result, the complainant failed to attend his very urgent meeting at Bangalore.
The complainant had to pay an additional charges of Rs.7,484 INR to OP for rescheduling the flight. The complainant stated deficiency in service by the OP and unfair trade practice against the OP. The complainant reportedly sent a complaint letter to OP but no action has been taken by the OP till date.
The complainant prayed before this Forum to pay compensation a sum of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-
No WRITTEN VERSION has been filed by the OP.
The complainant filed Affidavit of Evidence supporting his complaint.
Points for Decision
1) Whether the complainant is a consumer under the OP;
2) Whether OP is deficient in rendering promised service to the complainant;
3) Whether the OP suffers from negligence and unfair trade;
4) Whether the complainant deserves relief.
Decision with Reasons
1) The Opposite Party did not turn up and take part in the proceedings in spite of delivery of summons to OP. So, no written version has been filed by the OP. This indicates that the OP Airliner indirectly admitted the allegations leveled against them. Had there been any point in support of OP, they would have and should have controverted the points of the complaint to defend them. But they failed to defend themselves and the Evidence on Affidavit of the complainant remained unchallenged by the OP. By
2) By absenting themselves from the proceedings, the OP failed to assist the Forum in finding the truth lying in the midst of the dispute, which we have to explore from perusal of documents filed by the complainant.
3) The case is very simple. The complainant had confirmed ticket to fly from Kolkata to Bengaluru by Flight No. 6E-379 on 28/02/2017. The complainant arrived in time at the N.S.C. Bose International Airport, got boarding pass with seat number 26C, got checked by security personnel too with stamp affixed on the boarding pass.
4) When the complainant was moving towards the gate no. 23D for boarding, he was obstructed by one ground staff from boarding and the gate was closed. There was no audible announcement that the gate was being closed except an SMS to complainant’s mobile set while it was being scanned by the security personnel and so, the SMS could not be read. The complainant was compelled to reschedule his journey in the afternoon flight of OP by Flight 6E-958 by paying additional cost of Rs 7484/- and losing the opportunity of attending an important meeting at Bengaluru on 28/02/2017, though the complainant did not quantify his loss for not attending the important meeting.
5) From mere perusal of the complaint with supporting evidence, it appears that the OP should have allowed the complainant to board the Flight as they had
already received full consideration money at least a week ago and as all formalities were over at the indoor airport. They did not allow the complainant leading him face wastage of the day and loss of opportunity to attend the important meeting. So, the OP-Airliner is highly deficient.
6) Moreover, there must have been loudspeaker announcement before final closure of the gate to the Flight. No such announcement there. Only an SMS was sent to the mobile set of the complainant while under scanner. Had it not been under scanner by security personnel, it is hardly that one could see the mobile screen within such very short gap between receiving the SMS and the closure of the gate. But on loudspeaker announcement, this could not have happened. So, the OP-Airliner is deficient in this count too.
7) If such practice of OP-Airliner is presumed to have been continuing, this is unfair and deceptive in nature. For their lapse, the complainant could not board the Flight and could not reach destination in time but they compelled the complainant to buy another air-ticket of higher cost for the same day and the complainant had to pay additional amount of Rs 7484/-. This attitude of OP supports the complainant’s allegation of unfair and deceptive trade adopted for ulterior gain in making profit by the OP-Airliner. The OP could have easily challenged the point of allegation on unfair trade adopted by OP but they did not do so in spite of having a panel of lawyers under them, thereby admitting the allegation.
8) It need not be mentioned that since the complainant had paid full consi deration and bought potential service from the OP, he is a consumer under the OP as contemplated under section 2(1)(g) read with section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended. It has been clarified in the foregoing paragraphs that the OP-Airliner has been deficient in rendering promised service. So, it is natural justice that the complainant should get some relief.
In the backdrop of above analytical discussions, we are constrained to pass
ORDER
That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against the Opposite Party, Indigo Interglobe Aviation Ltd. in terms of section 13(2)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended;
That the OppositeParty, Indigo Interglobe Aviation Ltd. is directed to pay Rs 25000/- under section 14(1)(d) of the Act, as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony for loss of not attending the meeting at Bengaluru and Rs 5000/- as litigation cost, to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this judgement;
That on failure of the OP-Airliner to comply with the order within stipulated time of 30 days, the complainant shall have the liberty to put the order into execution under section 27 of the Act ibid.
Let copies of the order be handed over to the parties when applied for.
