BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sh.Inderjit Singh Walia # 1940, Phase V, Mohali.

….…Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1.  M/s Kingfisher Airlines Limited, Kingfisher House, Western Express Highway, Vile Parle(E), Mumbai.

2.  M/s Kingfisher Airlines Limited, Branch Manager, Kingfisher Airlines, SCO No.59-60, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

                      ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL,                          PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL              MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Manmohan Singh, Counsel. for complainant.

 Sh.Y.S.Dhillon, Counsel for OPs

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant got confirmed ticket for 29.10.2008 to travel by Air from Nanded to Chandigarh via Mumbai. The complainant boarded the flight at Nanded and arrived at Mumbai Airport as per schedule and no specific instruction was given between 10.10 a.m. to 12.23 noon, besides at 12.24, he received message on mobile that the flight time was deferred to 15.55PM instead of 14.44 and was again informed on mobile at 15.55 to reach at the aircraft for further journey.  The complainant asserted that when he reached the aircraft, it was told that due to heavy rush and fully loaded aircraft, the aircraft had already left for Chandigarh and his luggage was grounded without any fault. As per the complainant, he tried for another flight to Chandigarh or Delhi from OP-Airlines but after great persuasion, he got flight to Delhi at 17.45 p.m. which reached Delhi at 20.00 p.m. and at that time, no flight was available from Delhi to Chandigarh and ultimately, the complainant hired the taxi and thus incurred Rs.5000/- on taxi fare. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs for settlement of the dispute but to no effect. The complainant alleged that due to the aforesaid acts of omission and commission of OPs, he suffered mental agony and harassment but to no effect.

2]      OP filed written statement and took some preliminary objections. On merits, the factum of booking of the confirmed ticket has been admitted. However, It has been pleaded that there was a 55 minute delay in the scheduled time of departure of IT 605 operating from Mumbai to Chandigarh on 29.10.2008 and accordingly an SMS was sent to Complainant informing him about the said delay. He was informed about the scheduled time of departure for his flight to Chandigarh that was revised to 15:40 hrs. The Complainant was also called by the Call Centre Team of the Opposite Party Airline, informing him about the above delay. It has been denied that he was informed that departure of IT 605 was "deferred to 15:55 p.m. instead of 14:44". According to OPs, the Complainant's flight was scheduled to depart at 15:40 hrs and an SMS as well as a call was made to the Complainant, intimating him about the same and thus there was no question of the Opposite Parties asking the Complainant to report for boarding at 15:55 hrs for a flight departing at 15:40 hrs.  It has further been pleaded that the Complainant himself has stated that his checked-in baggage was off loaded from the flight No.IT-605 before taking off, which clearly prove that the Complainant had duly checked-in and he was issued a Boarding Pass. It is pertinent to mention herein that once the Boarding Pass is issued there is no question of denying boarding to any passenger provided the passenger reports at the Boarding gate on time i. e. 15 minutes before the scheduled time of departure of the flight.  It has been denied that the complainant delivered the letter dated 8.4.2009 in the office of OPs at Chandigarh. It has further been pleaded that as a good will gesture, the OPs arranged for the complainant to travel to Delhi without further charges. The other allegation with regard to the harassment and mental agony and taxi charges etc. have been denied. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]       The contention of the complainant in this complaint is that despite confirmed ticket (Ann.A-1) from Nanded to Chandigarh via Mumbai, the OPs failed to provide the services for which they have charged in advance.  He further contended that he remained in the Airport Waiting Lounge, waiting for the information from the OPs to board the Flight as the flight was delayed from the scheduled time; which was never flashed by the OPs, rather his baggage was off-loaded, which attributes to the nasty and irresponsible attitude of the OPs.

6]       The OPs in their written statement have stated and submitted that there was no question of denying boarding to a passenger, who has duly checked-in and issued a boarding pass (Ann.A-2).  They also submitted that 55 minutes delay in the flight schedule time was clearly informed to the complainant through SMS as well as making a call by the Call Centre Team of the OPs about the delayed timings [Annexure-RW-I (colly)].

7]       The OPs further asserted that a passenger is supposed to reach the boarding gate atleast 30 minutes prior to the departure of the Flight. The complainant’s own admission about receiving information of the flight timing through SMS and issuing a boarding pass after duly checked-in, clearly indicates that he did not report in time for boarding on the flight, even after checked-in; therefore, such a passenger used to be treated as “Gate-no-show passenger”.  The baggage of such a passenger had to be off-loaded due to security reasons. Therefore, the complainant missed the flight due to his own fault and negligence. The SMS reads as under:-

“IT605 DEPARTING FROM BOM FOR 29OCT IS DELAYED AND SCHEDULED TO DEPART AT 1540 HRS….”

8]       Having perused the evidence placed on file as well as hearing the arguments of the learned counsels of both the parties, it is clear beyond doubt that the Ops have intimated to the complainant well before time about the delay of the Flight, which is also an admitted fact by the complainant.  No prudent person can afford to reach the gate of airport to board the flight exactly just at the time of departure of flight; rather it is presumed that one must ensure his presence well before the time of departure of flight, in order to avoid any inconvenience, which the complainant has faced. 

9]       Certainly, the checked-in baggage was off-loaded and the complainant missed the confirmed flight, but the complainant has failed to provide any cogent evidence that why did not he reach well in time to board the flight when he very well knew that flight was to depart at 15.40 hours.  The sequence of events indicates that the said passenger i.e. complainant did not turn up for boarding the flight well in advance because the OPs had a convincing plea to tell that the airline is required to close the flight 15 minutes before the departure time in order to meet the deadlines set by the Air Traffic Controller (ATC).     

10]      Furthermore, the complainant’s own admission that he reported for the said flight at the time, which was intimated to him through SMS is a clear indication that he missed the flight due to his own fault and negligence. 

11]      In view of above, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  We accordingly dismiss this complaint.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.

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