Delhi State Commission Rejects Deficiency Of Service Complaint Against Indigo Airlines, Holds Complainant Responsible For Failing To Carry Documents For Immigration
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member) and Mr. J.P. Agrawal (General Member) dismissed the complaint against Indigo Airlines for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, holding the complainant responsible for failing to carry the required...
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member) and Mr. J.P. Agrawal (General Member) dismissed the complaint against Indigo Airlines for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, holding the complainant responsible for failing to carry the required documents for immigration.
Brief facts:
The complainant and her son had planed a vacation to Cambodia from 21.12.2019 to 28.12.2019, followed by a short trip to Srinagar. As there was no direct flight from Delhi to Cambodia, so they had to fly through Kuala Lumpur to Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
The complainants booked the tickets with Indigo Airlines (Respondent) for Delhi-Kuala Lumpur leg. For Kuala Lumpur to Phnom Penh, they booked their tickets via Air Asia.
According to the website of High Commission of Malaysia, there was no need for Transit Visa as their travel through Malaysia did not involve any change in Terminal. On 20.12.2019, Indigo Airlines issued Delhi-Kuala Lumpur boarding passes while they were advised to collect the other boarding passes of Kuala Lumpur to Phnom Penh from Air Asia at KLIA2 terminal.
Unlike Air Asia, the feature of web check-in and e-boarding was missing on the Indigo Airlines website. Due to absence of Transfer Desk of Indigo Airlines, the complainants had to go through immigration clearance which they failed.
After facing a lot of difficulty, the complainants were allowed to book Air Asia tickets to Delhi. The complainants argued that they were treated poorly. They also alleged the respondents for unfair contract and unfair trade practices.
Contentions of Indigo Airlines:
The respondents contended that the commission exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction. They also claimed misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Indigo Airlines denied deficiency of service as the complainants failed to submit the documents as per their Conditions of Contract (CoC).
Further, Indigo Airlines pointed out that the return flight was a separate booking and they were not responsible for connectivity. Additionally, complainants missed the check-in deadline.
Observation of the State Commission:
The commission observed that they are empowered to adjudicate upon the Complaint. They decided that Indigo Airlines and CEO of Indigo Airlines the only necessary parties. Thus, the commission denied non-joinder of any other party.
The commission stated that the complainants booked different tickets for both their legs by different airlines platform. Thus, there was no coherence in both journeys.
Basing its reliance on the ticket, which mentioned that it is the passenger's responsibility to ensure that they have the necessary travel documents, including visas, to meet the immigration requirements of the destination, the Commission held that the complainants failed to carry the necessary documents as per the requirements of Indigo Airlines.
Therefore, the State Commission concluded that Indigo Airlines was not in deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Hence, State commission dismissed the complaint with no cost.
Case Title: MS. Kalpna vs Indigo Airlines
Case No: Complaint Case No.- 178/2021
Date of Pronouncement: 22.11.2024