Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President and
Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
versus
Sarwan Kumar Sharma and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.166, 167 and 168 of 2022
Decided on 28.10.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Harsh Vardhan
For the Respondents: Nirmal Pandit
IMPORTANT POINT
Findings of fact arrived at by omitting to consider any relevant material can be interfered with on the ground of material irregularity or illegality in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Tour and Travels – Deficiency in Service – Rescheduling of flight had been intimated on Mobile Phones of complainant, followed by SMS – Petitioner has taken clear stand that it was neither their obligation nor had they any knowledge about preponement and any such lapse was total liability of Airlines which in its turn had duly intimated complainants – Complainants have clearly defaulted by not arriving within schedule time of departure in spite of having been intimated of rescheduling of flight – However, non-consideration of relevant material is perversity and findings of fact arrived at by omitting to consider any relevant material can be interfered with on the ground of material irregularity or illegality in exercise of revisional jurisdiction – There was no rebuttal on record nor is it available in present proceedings or otherwise discussed in impugned order to indicate that complainants had rebutted stand of Airlines about having been communicated rescheduling through Mobile Phone and SMS – Respondent/complainants would be entitled only to refund of actual amount paid by them as fare to Airlines. (Paras 11, 14, 18, 21, 24 and 27)
Result: Revision Petitions partly allowed.
ORDER
A.P. Sahi, President.—These three revision petitions arise out of three orders passed by the DCDRC, Jhajjar in three separate complaints filed by the respondent No. 1 in all the three revision petitions that were allowed by three separate orders of the same date 11.04.2017. Against the said orders the petitioner filed three separate appeals before the SCDRC, Haryana that were dismissed by three separate orders of the same date 08.01.2020. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present three revision petitions contending that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the complaints deserve to be dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to these proceedings in short are that on 31.01.2016 all the complainants booked their flights on GoAir from Delhi to Bangalore as well as a return journey. The present dispute relates to the journey from New Delhi to Bangalore on 11.06.2016 for which e-tickets were purchased recording the schedule departure of the flight at 6.00 hours. According to the complainants, when they reached the airport at 5.05 hours, they were informed by the airport authorities that the flights had been rescheduled for 5.45 hours and since they had not reported within the scheduled time as prescribed, they were marked as ‘No Show’ and therefore no boarding passes were issued to them. Resultantly, they missed their flight and had to acquire fresh tickets through Air India for which they had to spend a huge amount of Rs.22,000/-, thereby causing not only financial losses, but also subjecting them to a travel trauma on account of the reschedulement of the flight which was never intimated to them.
3. According to the complainants, they served a legal notice to the petitioner travel agents, who through their intimation dated 01.09.2016 informed that they were making arrangements for processing a full refund, but having failed to refund the amount or provide any redressal, the complaints were filed.
4. The two OPs in the complaint were the present petitioner as OP-1 and M/s. Go Airlines as OP-2. Notices were issued and both the OPs filed their separate written statements. The OP-2 namely M/s. Go Airlines filed their reply stating that the complainants had checked in and reported at 5.19 hours. They also stated in their reply that the message of the reschedulement of the flight to 5.45 hours, i.e. 15 minutes before the scheduled departure had been intimated on the respective mobile phones of all the ticket holders and SMS had also been sent on their mobile on 03.06.2016 itself. It was therefore the case of M/s. Go Airlines that they had informed the reschedule-ment well in advance and consequently, the complainants were required to report two hours in advance and report to the boarding gate 45 to 30 minutes before departure. The complainants checked in at the airport at 5.19 hours and therefore they had not arrived within the scheduled prescribed time nor did they report between 45 to 30 minutes of the departure time of 5.45 hours. It was also stated that even otherwise the complainants, assuming that the departure time was 6 hours, had not reached the Airport within the said timings and consequently there was no option, but to indicate a No Show sign and consequently, boarding passes could not be issued to them on account of their own default in arriving late.
5. The present petitioner who was arrayed as OP-1 also filed a reply and took a stand that the e-ticket clearly prescribed the boarding, check in time that was not adhered to by the complainant. It was also urged on behalf of the petitioner that after the tickets booked, it was the obligation of the Airlines to have intimated about the rescheduling of the flight that was done well in advance of 03.06.2016.
6. The petitioners also took a stand that according to the Civil Aviation requirements as framed under Rule 133A of the Air Craft Rules, the entire responsibility is of the Airlines and not of the petitioner. For this, two documents have been placed on record na
