Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/446/2017

Rajesh Joshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indigo (REgistered Office) Central Wing - Opp.Party(s)

Vertika H Singh

19 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/446/2017
Date of Institution	:	07/06/2017
Date of Decision	:	19/09/2018

 

1.     Rajesh Joshi s/o Late Sh. Rajinder Kumar Joshi, R/o H.No. 235, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh – 160011.

 

2.     Seema Joshi w/o Sh. Rajesh Joshi s/o Late Sh. Rajinder Kumar Joshi, R/o H.No. 235, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh – 160011.

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

 

1.     Indigo (Registered Office) Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110001, through its Authorized Representative.

 

2.     Indigo (Corporate Office) Level 1, Tower C, Global Business Park, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon – 122002, through its Director.

 

3.     Customer Service Manager, Indigo Airlines, Chandigarh International Airport, Airport Road, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab – 160003.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Smt. Vertika H. Singh, Counsel for Complainants.
	:	Ms. Jasdeep Kaur, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that the Complainants had to reach Bengaluru to attend a Ceremony, therefore, they online booked two tickets for flight from Chandigarh to Bengaluru, scheduled to be departed on 10.03.2017 with return journey on 13.03.2017. It has been averred that on the day of travel i.e. 10.03.2017, the Complainants checked in at the Airport around 1 P.M. and handed over the Baggage at the airline counter and boarding passes were obtained. The flight was to depart at 2.30 P.M. After delaying the said flight for 2-3 times, eventually, it was cancelled. The Complainants accordingly, contacted Opposite Party No.1 and asked for the Baggage and refund, but they were suggested to board the next flight at 06:30 P.M.  Since it was important for the Complainants to reach at Bengaluru, they agreed to board the said flight and accordingly new boarding passes along with one checked in Baggage receipt were handed over to them. It has been alleged that the departure of the next flight was also announced to be delayed and eventually the said flight too did not depart. Hence, the Complainants requested for the baggage and refund, which the Opposite Parties refused for want of boarding passes. At around 8.30 P.M. the Complainants hired the taxi and reached home. After waiting for three days, the Complainants served legal notice to Opposite Parties on 14.03.2017. In response whereof, the Complainants were refunded a sum of Rs.13,982/- against the full refund of Rs.14,282/- and were requested to collect the Baggage from the Airport, which Complainant No.1 collected on 09.04.2017. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainants have filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties filed their joint reply pleading that on 10.03.2017 the scheduled flight which was to depart at 2:30 P.M., was cancelled on account of operational reasons, which were beyond their control. Thereafter, the Complainants were accommodated on an alternative flight at 4.35 P.M. on the same day, but owing to operational difficulty, the said flight was delayed to 11:26 P.M. However, the Complainants for reasons best known to themselves, did not wish to fly on board and instead requested refund of their tickets. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties processed the said request of the Complainants and refunded an amount of Rs.13,982/- being the booking amount after deduction of the mandatory and non-refundable convenience fee. It has been urged that despite refusal of the Complainants to hand over the boarding passes, the Opposite Parties released the baggage of the Complainants from the Baggage Management Area. However, they did not collect the same on that day and further only arrived to collect the Baggage on 09.04.2017. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
7.         A meticulous perusal of the documentary evidence placed on the file reveals it was admission on the part of Opposite Parties that the Complainants could not get the scheduled flight and had to cancel their tour, which they arranged to attend certain important ceremony at Bangalore.  It is also admitted that out of original booking amount of Rs.14,282/-, the Complainants were refunded Rs.13,982/- after deduction of mandatory and non-refundable convenience fee. Further, it has also been admitted that the Complainants received their baggage approximately after one month of the date of scheduled flight. 
8.         In support of their claim, the Opposite Parties have heavily relied upon Annexure R-4 which is a copy of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), Section 3 Series M, Part-IV, issued by the Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation, which came into effect on 01.08.2016. We have thoroughly gone through the said Civil Aviation Requirements. Clause 3.9.1 of the same, which is relevant to the present controversy, reads as under: -  

3.9.1        The airlines shall display their policies in regard to compensation, refunds and the facilities that will be provided by the airline in the event of denied boardings, cancellations and delays on their respective websites as part of their passenger Charter of Rights. Passengers shall be fully informed by the airlines of their rights in the event of denied boarding, cancellations or delays of their flights so that they can effectively exercise their rights provided at the time of making bookings/ticketing, they have given adequate contact information to the airline or their agents. The obligation of airlines to fully inform the passenger(s) shall be included in ticketing documents and websites of the airlines and concerned third parties (GDS and travel agents) issuing such documents on airlines’ behalf.

                Per material on record, the above guidelines have completely been violated by the Opposite Parties, inasmuch as they have not mentioned about the rights of the passengers anywhere in their ticketing document as per the DGCA Guidelines.

9.         The excuse taken by the Opposite Parties of technical snag for inordinately long delay and thereafter, cancellation of the flight, is not only lame excuse, but projects either the poor maintenance of fleet or poor management of maintaining schedule of flights or airlines affairs.  In their reply, the Opposite Parties nowhere have given any specific/valid reason for delay/cancellation. Certainly, onus lies heavily upon the Opposite Parties to prove such a reason. In the absence of specific reply on the day of the flight and then during the pendency of the present case clearly reveals the negligent attitude of the Opposite Parties.  We are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties are liable to explain the cause of delay and subsequent cancellation of the flight due to which the Complainants have to cancel their entire programme. The Opposite Parties cannot leave the passengers in lurch under the garb of said standard format of terms & conditions. Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties for cancelling the scheduled flight without mentioning any specific reason for the same shows their negligent attitude towards their customers. It is the casual approach of the Opposite Parties only which forced the Complainants to knock the doors of this Forum in absence of redressal of their grievance at the appropriate time.
10.         On the issue of collection of the baggage, the Opposite Parties have contended that they are not liable for any kind of deficiency in service as it was the choice of the Complainants to collect the same after one month on 09.04.2017. However, we opine that even if the flight was cancelled and the Complainants had to go home back, then it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to arrange the return of the baggage of the Complainants themselves at their residence. However, in the present case, the Complainants after one month themselves had to take pains again to face the Opposite Parties and of course, humiliation to collect their belongings from the possession of the Opposite Parties.
11.         In view of the above, the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed against Opposite Parties and they are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-

 

1. To pay Rs.15,000/-, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainants and also for deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice.

 

2. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the complainants.

 

12.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [i] & [ii] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till these are actually paid.  

 

13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
19/09/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President