Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member, Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
Jagrut Nagrik & Anr. —Complainants
versus
Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation & Ors. —Opp.Parties
Consumer Case No.13 of 2008
Decided on 14.8.2015
For the Complainants: Mr. P.V. Moorjani, AR
For the Opp.Parties:Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Mr. Anand Jain, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Misleading advertisement by Airlines constitutes unfair trade practice.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 12—Airlines—Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice—Advertisements disclosing only minimum basic fare to potential consumers is misleading when viewed in light of fact that other charges payable by a passenger, far exceed said minimum basic fare—Obvious purpose behind issuing such misleading advertisements is to lure customers to website of carrier by misrepresenting to them that they would be able to travel on payment of fare advertised by carrier whereas, in fact, they have to pay much more than said minimum basic fare—Issue of advertisements such as those issued by Deccan Aviation and Jet Airways whether in newspapers or otherwise, constitutes unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2(1)(r)— Kingfisher Airline which is successor in interest of Deccan Aviation and respondent Jet Airways India Ltd., directed to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 25,00,000/- respectively as compensation in Consumer Welfare Fund of Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs. (Paras 7 to 11)
Result: Complaint allowed.
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant No.1 Jagrut Nagrik is a Public Trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trust and Societies Act and is stated to be working as a Voluntary Consumer Association, providing legal help to the consumers and undertaking activities for their awakening. According to the complainants, airlines have been advertising sale of tickets on throwaway prices, ranging from Rs.0/- to Rs.999/- while in fact, charging much much more than the price advertised by them. The respondent airlines, according to the complainant, are thereby misrepresenting the passengers, through misleading advertisements, as regard the fare being charged by them. This is also the case of the complainants that the airlines are charging fuel surcharge, congestion charges and transaction fee, which is much higher than their actual cost in this regard. The aforesaid action of the airlines, according to the complainants amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in the services to the passengers. The complainant are therefore before this Commission, seeking Rs.10,00,00,000/- as punitive charges from each of the respondent airlines. They are also seeking direction to the Government of India and Director of Civil Aviation to take appropriate action against the aforesaid airlines for giving misleading advertisements and illegally collecting fuel surcharge, congestion charges and transaction fee from the passengers.
2. In their reply, respondents No.1 and 2 have inter-alia stated that the tariff for domestic air transportation is not regulated by the Government and the same is left to be determined by the market forces of demand and supply. It is further stated that they have advised the airlines to clarify the tax components as well as the details of the fare, surcharges etc., and accordingly all airlines are now showing basic fare, fuel charges, congestion fee, passengers service fee and transaction fee (if the ticket is booked through a point of purchase other than the website of the airlines) separately.
3. Some of the respondents have filed reply opposing the complaint. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. while, disputing the locus-standi of the complainants to maintain the instant complaint has denied that the advertisements issued by it were misleading the passengers. As regards, fuel surcharges and congestion charges, it is claimed that they are additional expenses incurred by the airlines due to steep increase in Air Traffic Fuel (ATF) and air congestion at the Airport. It is further alleged in the reply that only and applicable taxes are collected and remitted to the Government. It is also pointed out in the reply that there are no legal restrictions on the airlines collecting fuel charges and congestion charges from the passengers.
4. In their reply, Kingfisher Airlines and Deccan Aviation Ltd. have inter-alia stated that their advertisements clearly states that Rs.500/- was the basic fare and transaction fee, fuel surcharge, congestion charges etc., will be charged extra and terms and conditions would apply. It is further stated that the entire information with respect to the break-up of the air fare is available on the website of the Airlines. It is also stated that Rule 135 (4) of the Aircraft Rules permit the Director General of the Civil Aviation to issue directions, in case he satisfied that any operator has established excessive tariff or indulged in oligopolistic practice. It is also pointed out in the reply that the cost of the ATF would be same, irrespective of number of passengers on a particular flight and normally there is congestion at several airports, which results in consumption of fuel while the aircraft is awaiting landing permission.
5. National Aviation Company India Ltd. (Owners of Air India), while denying issue of any misleading advertisements, has claimed that their fare structure is based on rational economic decisions and they are neither levying any congestion charges nor collecting transaction fee from t
