Delhi

North

CC/436/2024

ANANT KUMAR HAJELAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. - INDIGO - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL KUMAR HAJELAY

16 Dec 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.: 436/2024

 

In the matter of

Mr. Anant Kumar Hajelay

Chamber No.735-G, Western Wing,

Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054                      …       Complainant

Versus

M/s Interglobe Aviabtion Ltd. (IndiGo)

Upper Ground Floor, Thapar House,

Gate No.2, Western Wing, 124 Janpath,

New Delhi-110001.

Also at:

Third floor, Emaar Capital, Tower2,

MG  Road, Gurugram,

Haryana-122002.                                           …       Opposite Party No.1

 

M/s Turkish Airlines Inc. (Turk Hava Yollari A.O.)

OL 11, Level 4, Terminal 3 IGI Airport,

New Delhi-11037

Also at:

Unit No.1001 A,

10^th floor, Time Tower,

Sector 28, M.G. Road,

Gurugram, Haryana-122001                            …       Opposite Party No.2

ORDER

16/12/2024

Present: Shri Anil Kumar Hajelay, Ld. Advocate for Complainant along with Complainant in person.

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

MA No.248/2024

1. By way of this application, the Complainant has sought amendment in the complaint. In view of the fact that this complaint is at pre-admission stage, we are inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The amended complaint is taken on record.

CC No.436/2024

2. We have already heard the arguments on the amended complaint on the last date of hearing.
3. By way of this complaint, the Complainant has alleged that the Complainant and his wife namely Ms. Surbhi Samra were travelling from Delhi to San Francisco vis Istanbul on 07.04.2024 but were not served Gluten-free food by the OP airlines.
4. The Complainant states that the Complainant booked a ticked for the flight from Delhi to San Francisco for the date of 07.04.2024. The said ticket was booked on the website of M/s Cleartrip (not a party) for the flight no.6E-11 operated by M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd. (OP-1) from Delhi to Istanbul and the connected flight having number 6E-4271 from Istanbul to San Francisco operated by M/s Turkish Airlines Inc. (OP-2) under the codeshare agreement with the OP-1.
5. It is further stated that wife of the Complainant was recently diagnosed Celiac disease and she can only take gluten free diet. It is further stated that there was no selection of the meal was possible at the time of booking flight ticket. Hence, the Complainant contacted the OP-1 customer service twice via phone call on 03.04.2024 for pre-booking gluten free meals for the travelers. It has also contended by the Complainant he was informed that the OP-1 does not serve gluten free diet in their flight and for making the meal selection for the Istanbul and San Francisco sector. The Complainant, then, had to contact the OP-2 directly. As OP-1 had not provided the contact details of OP-2, the Complainant obtained the contact details of OP-2 from other sources and contacted the OP-2 for pre-booking gluten free meal. OP-2 allegedly informed the Complainant that the request for gluten free meal must be sent via OP-1 Airlines as OP-2 is operating the airlines under Codeshare agreement with the OP-1. Accordingly, the Complainant wrote the email to OP-1 on 04.04.2024 and requested the OP-1 to intimate to OP-2 to provide gluten free meal. The OP-1 acknowledged the email and has also informed the Complainant that they have informed OP-2 to provide gluten free meal in the flight for Istanbul- San Francisco sector.
6. Thereafter, when the Complainant flew from Delhi to Istanbul and then from Istanbul to San Francisco, his wife was not provided with the gluten free meal in either of the flights. Hence, upon returning back to India, the Complainant through his Advocate sent a legal notice to both the OPs on 28.11.2024. In reply to the legal notice, OP-2 has informed the Complainant that no special meal request was received by OP-2 for the flight in question. Therefore, the Complainant has filed this complaint alleging the deficiency of service by both the OPs and has sought the following relief:-

1. Pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) to the Complainant towards compensation for causing mental harassment and agony, along with pendent lite and future interest @ 12% p.a.,
2. Pay the amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) to the Complainant toward the charges for the issuance of the Legal notice, along with pendent lite and future interest @ 12% p.a.,
3. Pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards the litigation cost of this complaint.
4. Any other order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be also passed in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties in the interest of justice.

7. The issue raised by the Complainant in this complain are not plain and simple. First, there is no document on record to suggest that the wife of the Complainant is having Celiac disease and she can only have gluten free meal. Second, the details of the telephonic communication are also not on record. Third, the contentions of the parties require detailed examination particularly detailed examination of the witnesses and the examination of evidences in support of their arguments. It is a settled principle that where detailed examination is required Consumer Commissions are not proper Commissions to entertain the complaint. In the complaint filed under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, the case is decided in summary proceedings in which the leading of detailed examination and cross examination are not permitted.
8. For such detailed examination of evidences proper remedy for the Complainant is to move Civil Court and to file an appropriate Civil Suit. In this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Synco industries and State bank of Bikaner and Jaipur [(2002) 2 SCC 1] in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held Consumer Commissions are not proper forum to adjudicated the disputes. The Consumer Commission can hear and disposed of the disputes in summary fashion and not by way of detailed examination.
9. The prayers in the complaint are also vague and without proper justification. The Complainant has sought the compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs. 31,000/- (Rs. 11,000/- for notice and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of this litigation) as litigation expenses. The Complainant has not filed any document to show that he has incurred any cost for sending legal notice and also for filing this complaint. He has also not justified his litigation expenses by filing any payment receipts for his payments made to any of his lawyers, if any.
10. For harassment, mental pain and agony, except for the argument that the wife of the Complainant was suffering from Celiac disease and that she cannot consume food containing gluten, there is no document or proof on record to suggest such ailment and exact injury or harm inflicted upon the Complainant’s wife by not serving gluten free meals by the OP airlines. The allegation of harm and mental agony is very vague and not specific.
11. It is a settled law that the Complainant filed under CPA 2019, is meant for saving consumer from being exploited and it is not meant for windfall or making purchaser millionaire overnight. CPA, 2019 is a welfare registration and is not meant to be a tool to wrong gains. The compensation sought by the Complainant is dis-appropriately high and the Complainant has not given any proper justification for the same. In our opinion, prayer for high compensation and cost without proper justification by the Complainant herein is not correct and is to be discouraged. For this, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta vs. Vodafone East Limited [FA 847/2017 decided on 05.10.2018]. However, as the Complainant is a practising Advocate, we are refraining from passing any adverse order on this aspect against the Complainant.
12. Accordingly for the reason explained above, this complaint is dismissed at admission stage. However, in the interest of justice, we grant liberty to the Complainant to approach the forum of appropriate jurisdiction for adjudication of the case, if so advised. Needless to say if the Complainant approached any other Forum/ Court, the same shall decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. While approaching the forum of appropriate jurisdiction, the Complainant may seek the benefit of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmi Engineering Works vs PSG industrial Institute [(1995) 3 SCC 583], for explaining the delay in initiating appropriate proceedings, if any.
13. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Office is also directed to return all original documents filed by the Complainant, if any, after keeping certified copies of the same in the record. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

_________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

_________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

_________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member