Sri C.V.MARAGOOR,

President

1.       This complaint has filed by Shymal Sunder Ghosh and two others residents of Mysuru to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- compensation to each of them for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice resulting in tension, trauma, mental agony and annoyance, Rs.75,000/- towards cost of the proceedings, and Rs.1,00,000/- to the Legal Aid Account of the Forum.
2.        The opposite party No.1 is running Indigo Airlines and opposite party No.2 is travel agency.  The complainants have booked airline tickets through opposite party No.2 on 21.05.2018 to travel from Bangalore to Calcutta through the airline of opposite party No.1 on 14.08.2018 to attend the marriage function of the brother of complainant No.2.  The complainants have booked tickets three months in advance by paying total sum of Rs.12,222/- and their tickets have been confirmed.  It is further case of complainants that on 14.08.2018 at 4.00 PM they have reached Kempegowda International Airport, Bangalore.  As soon as the gates were opened, there was a rush and the complainants were waited in the queue to hand over their luggage in the check in counter.  The complainants waited and as time was passed by they were getting worried and again approached the counter at that point of time, it was informed the complainants that there is no tickets in their names and the flight is full and the opposite parties were helpless in this regard. 
3.       The complainants have contacted the opposite party No.2 but he expressed his inability to help them.  Then the complainants have decided to travel on the next day to Calcutta by staying in a lodge nearby airport.  The complainants after getting information that next available flight was on 15.08.2018 and paid Rs.6,000/- and odd as the opposite party No.1 gave set-off Rs.12,222/- and confirmed tickets for the journey on 15.08.2018.  On 15.08.2018 the complainants travelled in the flight of opposite party No.1 and reached Calcutta by that time function had almost ended. The complainants were laughing stock in front of the friends and relatives present there.  The family members at Calcutta were unhappy due to delay in arrival.  Though the complainants have booked the tickets well in advance to travel to Calcutta but the opposite party No.1 over booked the flight and accommodated other passengers in the confirmed tickets of complainants.  The act of opposite parties not only amounts to deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint.
4.       The opposite party No.1 appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version running 27 pages against 10 pages of complaint admitting that the complainants have reserved their tickets for their journey on 14.08.2018 through opposite party No.2 on 21.05.2018.  The opposite party No.1 has denied the averments made in the complaint that they arrived the International Airport, Bangalore on 14.08.2018 at 4.00 PM and they were queue to hand over their luggage in the check-in-counter.  It is the defence of opposite party No.1 that the complainants reached the check-in-counter after the schedule timing of two hours before the departure or 45 minutes before the departure of the flight.  The flight in which the complainants have to travel departure time was at 19.10 hrs on 14.08.2018 but the complainants arrived the check-in-counter at 18.34 hrs.  The complainants had reached the check-in-counter 9 minutes after the schedule time of the closure of check-in-counter.  The schedule time to reach the check-in-counter was printed in ticket, published in the website of opposite party No.1 and also sent message well in advance on the date of travel i.e. 14.08.2018.  The complainants have come up with false allegations that the opposite party No.1 staff has informed that no ticket is booked in their name when they reach check-in-counter.  Due to negligence or default of complainants, they could not travel on the schedule flight.  The complainants have made false allegations of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. On the amongst other grounds, the opposite party No.1 asked to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
5.       The opposite party No.2 despite the service of notice proceeded exparte.   
6.        The complainant No.1 filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced seven documents in support of their case.  On behalf of opposite party No.1 one Rahul Kumar S/o M.L.Kukreti authorized signatory filed affidavit evidence and got marked Exhibits R.1 to R.7 documents.
7.        We have heard the oral arguments advanced by both the learned counsels in addition to written brief and the points that would arise for determination are as under:- 

1.  Whether the complainants prove that the opposite party No.1 denied their booking for travelling on 14.08.2018 amounts to deficiency in service?
2.  Are complainants entitled to the reliefs sought for?

8.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative;

Point No.2 :- In the negative as per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

9.         Point Nos.1 and 2:- The learned counsel for the complainants vehemently argued that though the complainants have reached the check-in-counter in advance but the opposite party No.1 told that no tickets is booked in their names for today flight which departure time is 19.10 hrs. The learned counsel further submitted that the opposite party No.1 has made over booking and in order to adjust the said customers denied travelling to the complainants who have reserved their seats three months in advance.  As against this the learned counsel representing the opposite party No.1 has submitted that check-in-time has printed in the ticket itself and the complainants should have reached the check-in-counter two hours before the departure of flight or atleast 45 minutes before the departure.  The complainants have reported at 6.34 PM for check-in-counter by delay of 9 minutes by that time check-in-counter was closed.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and on the contrary the complainants were negligent to report well in time to check-in-counter. 
10.       In this case undisputed facts are that the complainants have reserved in the opposite party No.1 flight to travel from Bangalore to Calcutta on 21.05.2018 for the journey day 14.08.2018.  The departure of the flight time was 7.10 PM.  It is the case of complainants that they reached International Airport, Bangalore on 14.08.2018 at 4.00 PM and they were in queue to hand over luggage in the check-in-counter.  The complainants have not produced any documents or message to show that they reached International Airport, Bangalore on 14.08.2018 at 4.00 PM.  The complainants would have sent E-mail or message to opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2 stating the fact that the staff of opposite party No.1 in check-in-counter told that tickets is not reserved in their name.  Absolutely there is no material to believe that the complainants reached the check-in-counter as per the terms and conditions of the booking that is check-in-time begins two hours before for seat assignment in the flight and closes 45 minutes before its schedule departure.  The said condition is printed on the first page of ticket issued in the name of complainants on 21.05.2018 by opposite party No.2. 
11.       The opposite party No.1 produced exhibit R.4 screen shot of computerized copy.  Exhibit R.4 shows that the complainants have reported to the counter at 18.34 hrs.  On the application filed by complainants’ counsel opposite party No.1 has given information that number of passengers travelled in the flight No.6E-676 on 14.08.2018.  The chart indicates that the said flight departed from Bangalore airport at 19.10 hrs.  As already observed that if the complainants have reached the check-in-counter before two hours of assignment of seat and 45 minutes before departure of the flight and when the opposite party No.1 staff refused to receive their I.D. cards for issue of boarding pass with a reason that tickets is not booked in their names, immediately they would have sent message or E-mail to opposite party No.2 and also to opposite party No.1.  The complainants have not placed any material to show that they reached the check-in-counter as per the terms and conditions of the carrier to issue boarding pass.  Thus the complainants have failed to prove that the staff of opposite party No.1 in check-in-counter told that tickets is not reserved in their name to travel in the flight schedule departure time at 19.10 hrs. 
12.       The learned counsel for the complainants submitted that the opposite party No.1 has made over booking and adjusted the passengers thereby refused the complainants to travel  who have booked the tickets long back.  The learned counsel for the complainants in support of their submission relied upon the case of Air France Vs O.P.Srivastava and others (2018) Consumer Judgements 769 – wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that over booking may be commercially viable international practice being adopted by all airlines to ensure that seats in flights do not go vacant in the event of no-shows by booked passengers but same cannot be at alternate passengers.  Not permitting a passenger holding confirmed ticket to board a flight, amounts to deficiency of service on part of airline. 
13.       The opposite party No.1 on the application filed by complainants produced chart showing number of passengers travelled in the said flight, from the day on which they reserved their seats etc.,  According to opposite party No.1 total capacity of the flight was 180, total checked in on 14.08.2018 schedule flight was 177, total boarded 173 and total No-show – four.  The last passenger booked the ticket on 14.08.2018 at 14.14 hrs.  On perusal of the chart, we may say that there was no over booking by opposite party No.1.  Therefore, the above citation is not helpful to the complainants. 
14.      The learned counsel for the complainants submitted that on the next day flight the same PNR number shows that there was mistake on the part of opposite party No.1.  As against this the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that the opposite party No.1 has not collected entire value of the tickets of Rs.18,000/- and odd on the next day flight as a gesture of service the opposite party No.1 by giving set-off of Rs.12,222/- has collected Rs.6,000/- and odd from the complainants as such new PNR number was not given.  According to terms and conditions of the opposite party No.1 once it is shown as No-show or if the passenger fails to reach the check-in-counter before 45 minutes of the departure of the flight the ticket amount shall be forfeited.  On the contrary, the opposite party No.1 instead of forfeiting the entire amount excluding taxes has given set-off as a gesture of service and good will a sum of Rs.12,222/-.  It shows that there is no fault on the part of opposite party No.1 while making re-accommodation to the complainants on the next day flight.  Thus the complainants have failed to prove the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to any reliefs sought in this case.   Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by Sri Shymal Sunder Ghosh and two others is dismissed without costs.
2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainants and opposite parties at free of cost.