Deficiency In Service Of Indigo Airlines For Not Informing Cancellation Of Flight And Details Of Alternate Flights; SCDRC Punjab

The bench of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab comprising Justice Daya Chaudhary, President, Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member and Urvashi Agnihotri, Member has observed that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of Indigo Airlines for not informing the cancellation of flight along with details of alternate flights through SMS on mobile phone of passenger. In this case, the complainant (passenger) booked a return flight ticket with the Indigo Airlines dated 15.02.2018 from Kochi to Bangalore and Bangalore to New Delhi and paid Rs.8,098/-. On 12.02.2018 while being at Kochi, the complainant came to know from other person that flight from Bangalore to Delhi had been cancelled. The complainant contacted Airline and cancellation of flight was confirmed but no reason of cancellation was stated. Due to the cancellation of flight, the complainant had to face lot of inconvenience in making alternate arrangements for reaching Delhi and missed some business opportunities resulting loss to the complainant. The passenger filed complaint with the District Commission prayed Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for inconvenience, mental agony and harassment. District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Indigo Airlines to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony. Aggrieved by the decision of District Forum the Indigo Airlines filed an appeal before the Punjab State Commission for dismissal of complaint and passenger filed for enhancement of compensation under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Before the State Commission, the appellant (Indigo airlines) submitted that, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed by the Indigo. The Indigo Airlines could not operate the Indigo Flight on 15.02.2018 due to operational reasons beyond its control on the schedule and this fact was not only brought to the attention of the respondent through SMS and calls but also during the conversation, when he called on two occasions on 12.02.2018. District Forum failed to appreciate the admitted fact that once the option of refund was chosen and consequent refund was accepted then no cause of action survived against the Indigo Airlines. The respondent (Passenger) submitted that, the District Commission has ignored the vital fact while granting relief to the complainant that the Indigo has given no details of the refund amount for the cancelled ticket and rather refunded only Rs.3,334/- on its own whims and fancies. After cancellation of the flight, the Indigo was duty bound to board the passenger to some other flight from Bangalore to Delhi on their own expenses but this was not done by the opposite party. The issue for consideration before the State Commission was whether the Indigo Airlines was deficient in service or not. Commission found that, the connecting flight from Bangalore to Delhi was cancelled by the Indigo Airlines, however, there is no evidence that any SMS to this effect was sent to the passenger intimating the cancellation of flight. Commission stated that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Indigo Airlines for not informing the cancellation of flight along with details of alternate flights through SMS on mobile phone of passenger as calls to the said phone were unattended as alleged by the Indigo. The bench noted that, Indigo Airlines received a sum of Rs.8,098/- for the entire journey and refunded only Rs.3,334/- without any calculations for the return journey, which is not justified as it must not be less than 50% of the amount paid as return journey had two flights. State Commission observed that, the District Commission has rightly held that the Indigo Airlines is deficient in rendering the service. The order passed by the District Commission is a well-reasoned and justified order and there is no need of interference in it. Regarding the Compensation amount the bench stated that, the passenger has not placed any evidence that he lost business of Rs.2,20,000/-, so the complainant is not entitled to any amount due to loss of business. In the absence of any evidences, it would not be possible to adjudge as to whether the passenger actually faced the monetary loss or faced other difficulties. The District Commission has awarded a reasonable compensation to the passenger. There is no reason/justification to enhance the same. Punjab State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by Indigo Airlines and upheld the order of the District Commission. Case Name: Indigo Airlines v. Nirmal Kumar Bhalla Case No.: First Appeal No.94 of 2021 Corum: Justice Daya Chaudhary, President, Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member and Urvashi Agnihotri, Member Decided on: 13th June, 2022 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Deficiency In Service Of Indigo Airlines For Not Informing Cancellation Of Flight And Details Of Alternate Flights; SCDRC Punjab

Mehak Dhiman

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Deficiency In Service Of Indigo Airlines For Not Informing Cancellation Of Flight And Details Of Alternate Flights; SCDRC Punjab

Mehak Dhiman

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers