Tripura

StateCommission

A/32/2018

Indigo Airlines - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Dipannita Mog - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Arindam Kar, Mr. D. Bhattachrya

07 Feb 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.32.2018

 

 

1. Indigo Airlines,

Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapar House,

124, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001, India,

[Represented by its Managing Director],

Anupama Market, Close to VIP Road,

Kolkata - 700052.

            … … … … Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

Vs

 

1. Smt. Dipannita Mog,

D/o Lt. Monglafru Mog,

W/o Sri Thailafru Mog,

Gurkhabasti (Natun Palli),

P.O. Kathal Bagan,

Pin - 799006.

… … … … Respondent/Complainant.

2. Airport Authority of India,

Rajib Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi -110001,

Represented by its Managing Director.

… … … … Proforma Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.2.

3. General Manager,

Airport Authority of India, 

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose 

International Airport, Kolkata - 700052.

… … … … Proforma Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.3.

4. The In-charge of 'Ultra Bar',

Situated at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport,

Kolkata - 700052.

… … … … Proforma Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.4.

 

 

Present

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

For the Appellant:                                               Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, Adv.

For the Respondent/Complainant:                        Mr. Bhaskar Debroy, Adv.

For the Proforma Respondent No.1, 2 and 3:        Absent.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:             07.02.2019.

 

J U D G E M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is preferred by the appellant, InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1/IndiGo Airlines) against the impugned judgment dated 02.07.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.134 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the complainant, the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as complainant), holding that the complainant is entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.30,000/- and also to get the costs of air tickets amounting to Rs.21,896/- for three passengers and further entitled to get cost of proceeding Rs.10,000/-, in total Rs.61,896/-. The appellant, opposite party no.1, Indigo Airlines was also directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant as compensation and cost of air tickets as well as cost of litigation within a period of two months, if not paid; it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.     

2. During the pendency of appeal, the opposite party no.1, IndiGo Airlines submitted an application for taking additional evidence as per provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the evidence sought for could not be produced before the learned District Forum at the time of adducing evidence due to inadvertence. The opposite party no.1, IndiGo Airlines in support of additional evidence has also submitted one pen drive before this Commission wherein a video footage of the incident is available. As none appeared on the date of submitting of the additional evidence, the appeal was fixed for filing objection against the additional evidence by the respondent-complainant.  
3. Today the matter is fixed for order on application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Heard Mr. Debaloy Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant, opposite party no.1, InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. (Indigo Airlines) as well as Mr. Bhaskar Debroy, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant. None appears on behalf of the proforma respondent no.1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.2, 3 and 4.
5. As agreed to by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at this order stage itself.   
6. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-    

Complainant, Smt. Dipannita Mog submitted one application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala stating, inter alia, that she along with her friend went to Kolkata for treatment and she was scheduled to come back to Agartala on 25^th August, 2016 at 15.50 hours. She along with others came to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Terminal in time and after completion of security check, they entered into the security check-in-area. After entering into the security check-in-area, the complainant and her other associates were waiting for their schedule flight. As there was enough time for departure of their flight, the complainant and one of her friends, namely, Raja Chowdhury had chosen to drink in the Bar situated in the waiting lounge and accordingly ordered for pegs. The staff of the said Bar have served two pegs of 30 ml to each of them. After making payment to the Bar, the complainant and Raja Chowdhury and children of the complainant went for shopping there including 'Biswa Bangla' shopping complex. During purchasing goods from ‘Biswa Bangla’ some altercation took place. The staff of the said shop started to misbehave with the complainant and her friend by uttering slang languages. On their call, two staff of IndiGo Airlines also arrived there and instead of giving any facilities to the complainant and his companion they also started to misbehave with them. The staffs of the IndiGo Airlines also misbehaved with the children of the complainant and thereafter IndiGo staff did not allow her and her boy friend, Raja Chowdhury to board the schedule flight. There was no notice board to support that passenger on consuming alcohol will not be allowed to board the flight. Wine Bar was inside the security lounge and many passengers were taking the liquor on payment. The IndiGo staff did not allow her to board the aircraft. She could not come to Agartala and had to stay at Kolkata. Thus, she claimed compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- for harassment and also towards cost of litigation.

7. The opposite party no.1 and 2, IndiGo Airlines and the Airport Authority of India filed written statement denying the claim of the complainant. The opposite party no.2, Airport Authority of India in their written statement stated that burden lies on the complainant what type of liquor was taken by her and whether she was capable of taking care of herself. CC TV record could not be supplied to her due to security reason.
8. The opposite party no.1, IndiGo Airlines also filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated in the written statement that Condition of Carriage is available in the airport counter and also in the website. As per terms and condition of IndiGo CoC, it is clear that IndiGo Aviation authority has the right to deny boarding to any passenger who is under the influence of alcohol. If the IndiGo is of the opinion that a customer conducts himself aboard the aircraft so as to endanger the aircraft or any person or property on board as smoking or taking alcohol or drug or behaves in the manner which causes discomfort, inconvenience, damages or injury to other customers, IndiGo may take such measures as it deems reasonably necessary to prevent continuation of such conduct. Such customer may be disembarked and refused onward carriage at any point and may be prosecuted.
9. The learned District Forum after considering the pleadings as well as the evidence adduced by the parties passed the impugned judgment. Hence the appeal.
10. Mr. Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the IndiGo Authority while rendering service to the passenger like the complainant had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the course of the transaction and that their action or the final decision was in good faith, it cannot be said that there had been any deficiency in service, rather it is the complainant and her boy friend, Raja Chowdhury created nuisance in the airport arena before their boarding due to influence of taking liquor. Thus, she is not entitled to get any compensation as directed by the learned District Forum. He has also submitted that the complainant had prayed for video footage of the incident before the learned District Forum, which could not be submitted before the learned District Forum due to inadvertence and security reason, but for the ends of justice and as asked by this Commission, the IndiGo Airlines submitted a prayer for taking additional evidence as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in support of the additional evidence has also submitted one pen drive wherein a video footage of the incident is available. According to him, today is fixed for filing objection on behalf of the respondent-complainant against the prayer for taking additional evidence, but no objection is filed. Thus, the prayer for additional evidence may be allowed.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Debroy, Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the complainant had also prayed before the learned District Forum to direct the appellant, opposite parties for submitting the video clipping of the incident which was not submitted before the learned District Forum at the time of adducing evidence. He in his usual fairness submits that he will not submit any objection to the prayer for adducing additional evidence as prayed for, but in that case, the complainant should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the appellant, opposite party no.1-IndiGo Airlines and the opposite party no.2, the Airport Authority of India, if any produce and also the complainant should be provided the copy of the pen drive which is produced before this Commission.  
12. It appears from the record that though the learned District Forum allowed time again and again to the appellant, opposite party no.1, IndiGo Airlines, but the appellant, IndiGo Airlines failed to submit the written statement in time and finally, though the appellant, opposite party no.1-IndiGo Airlines filed their written statement, but in support of their written statement neither they have submitted any examination-in-chief, nor produced any witness. In such a situation, there was no alternative before the learned District Forum except to pass the impugned judgment. However, as at this appellate stage, the opposite party no.1, IndiGo Airlines has prayed for taking additional evidence and the Ld. Counsel of the complainant has no objection to that aspect, the prayer for taking additional evidence is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost which shall be paid to the complainant within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment of this Commission and the pen drive wherein the video footage of the incident is available is considere9d as an additional evidence. It would not be proper for this Commission to express any opinion on merit regarding the impugned judgment though there is some inconsistency.  
13. As agreed to by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties, the impugned judgment is set aside so that the complainant as well as the appellant, opposite party no.1-IndiGo Airlines can adduce further evidence and also the complainant can cross-examine the witness, if any produced by the opposite party no.1-IndiGo Airlines including the video footage of the incident. Appellant, IndiGo Airlines shall supply the similar copy of pen drive where the video footage of the incident is available to the complainant for her satisfaction and cross-examination of the witness, if any, would appear before the learned District Forum. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum to decide the case afresh after providing opportunity to the parties including fresh evidence, if any.

After receipt of this judgment, the learned District Forum should issue notice to the parties for their appearance at an early date and shall make an attempt to dispose of the case within one month from the date of appearance of the parties. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala along with the pen drive i.e. ‘Annexure-A’ to the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure submitted by the opposite party no.1, IndiGo Airlines before this Commission.   

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura