Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.D. Kapoor, President and Rumnita Mittal, Member
INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED AND ORS. - Appellants
Versus
R.K. AGGARWAL AND ORS. - Respondents
Appeal No. 07 of 518
Decided on : 20-09-2007
Mr. Subhro Sanyal, Advocate, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent
An airline cannot forfeit the amount paid for a ticket unless it suffers pecuniary loss and proves it with convincing evidence.
Headnote:
Refusal to Board - Airline Passenger Rights - The court held that the airline's refusal to board passengers with confirmed tickets, who arrived an hour before the scheduled time, amounted to unfair trade practice and unjust enrichment. The court emphasized that unless the airline suffers pecuniary loss and proves it with convincing evidence, it cannot forfeit the amount paid for the ticket if the service is not provided or availed by the consumer.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents purchased 10 tickets for a flight but were not provided boarding passes despite arriving an hour before the scheduled time. The airline refused to refund the amount paid for the tickets, leading to the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the airline's refusal to board passengers with confirmed tickets unjust and held that the airline cannot forfeit the amount paid for the ticket if the service is not provided or availed by the consumer.
Issues: Refusal to board passengers with confirmed tickets, unjust enrichment, unfair trade practice, forfeiture of ticket amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The airline cannot forfeit the amount paid for the ticket unless it suffers pecuniary loss and proves it with convincing evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the airline was directed to return the air fare charged to the respondents, along with compensation and cost of litigation.
ORDER
J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)- On account of having refused few of the respondents, who were having confirmed tickets to board the plane, District Forum has vide impugned order dated 2.6.2007 directed the appellant to return the air fare charged by it including all charges and taxes to each of the respondents and Rs. 3,000 as compensation and cost of litigation to each of the respondent.
2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. Case of the respondents in brief was that the respondents purchased 10 tickets from the appellant on 2.11.2002 for travelling from Delhi to Indore by flight No. 7134 for departure on 24.11.2002. The respondents paid a total sum of Rs. 17,884 as cost of ten tickets. The schedule time of the flight was 13.20 hours. The scheduled timing of the flight was changed to 3.30 hours. When the respondents reached airport, the officers of the appellant did not provide correct information to the respondents. The respondents reported at counter of appellant at 13.12 hours but boarding passes were not issued to all the respondents. Appellant's executive responded that few out of ten passengers can be accommodated in scheduled flight and left out passengers can be accommodated in another flight but the respondents refused to travel separate and asked for refund of the amount of the tickets. Appellant declined to refund the amount on the premise that they reported late and not at the scheduled time. Feeling aggrieved the respondents filed the instant complaint and obtained the impugned order.
4. The stand taken by the appellant that when passengers with confirmed tickets do not check in time, the passengers in waiting lists are called and only three passengers were accepted from the waiting list because some of the respondents did not report in time, is lame excuse. It is beyond our comprehension that all the 10 members including minor children travelling by the same flight would not come together for check in. We have deprecated the practice of the airlines to refuse boarding of the passengers with confirmed status of the ticket even if they report hour before schedule time for security purpose etc. This amounts to unfair trade practice as on the one hand they refuse to refund the amount of tickets to those passengers who did not report in time and on the other hand allow the other passengers from the waiting list to travel by the same, thereby ending up with double amount for one seat, it amounts to becoming unjustly rich.
5. It is not a case where Airlines suffered pecuniary loss by denying boarding for not reporting in time. Such a rule is unconscionable and, therefore, no enforceable being a void contract. Unless the party suffers pecuniary loss and proves it by convincing evidence, no service provider can be allowed to forfeit the amount if it has not provided service or the consumer has not availed the service. Consideration is received towards providing of service. May be for any reason if the service is neither provided nor availed by the consumer, service provider has no right to forfeit or usurp the amount of consideration and charge another amount from other passengers for allowing him to board the flight.
6. In the result, we dismiss the appeal being misconceived and misdirected. The payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
7. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
