IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER D^PUTE^ REDRES^AL COMl$Ss1oN'~

; NEW? DELHI - ■ '

- i r '

REVISION PETITION NO,204 OF 2017 (From the order dated 24.10.2016 in FA No.‘819/2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan)

1. Sh. Shakti Singh Raghav s/o Rajendra Singh Raghav r/o Plot No.

303. Scheme No. 8 Gandhi Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan.

2. Dr. Praveen Garg s/o Sh Yogendra Garg r/o SW B, Kalan Kua, Alwar, Rajasthan. .... Petitioner (s)

Versus

1. Indian Airlines (Now Air India Ltd,), Head Office Air India Ltd. Airlines House

113,Gurdawara-Rakabganj Road, New Delhi through Station Manager. Respondent(s)

2. Ezeego-1 Travel & Tour Ltd, Registered Office- Vaman Techno Center of Andheri Kurla Road, Morol Makwana Road Andheri East Mumbai, Maharashtra Proforma Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HQN’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent(s) Mr, Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate &

Ms. Deeksha Arora, Advocate for R-1 Dated 13.02.2026 :

ORDER

1.

Heard counsel for both sides, 2.

The challenge is to the order dated 24.10.2016 of the State Commission, vide which the first appeal filed by the respondent Airline was allowed and the order of the District Commission was set aside. Earlier, the District Commission vide its r*- r ■

order dated 29.01.2015 allowed the complaint with certain directions to the Airline with respect to refund, compensation, etc.

3. W hat emerges from the facts of the case is that there were 7 passengers who were to board the flight on 29.03.2014. Boarding passes to these 7 passengers were issued at 10:05 / 10:06 a.m. and these boarding passes indicated the boarding time as 10:20 a.m. It is the case of the Airline that these 7 passengers did not report at the boarding gate till 10:49 a.m. and hence they were deleted from the list of passengers to be boarded, although the complainants claim that these 7 persons reported at the boarding gate at 10:40 a.m. and the boarding pass itself states that the boarding gate would close 20 minutes before departure and hence, they had a right to board any time between 10:20 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.

4. It is to be noted that these 7 tickets were originally booked/ issued for econonX class,-they were upgraded to business class, possibly on account of over booking in the economy class. Although the boarding passes seem to have been issued in economy class, the seat numbers are of the business class seats, as claimed by the respondent Airline, which contends that these 7 seats went vacant on account of non-reporting of these passengers at the boarding gate on time. The complainants filed a formal complaint time at 12:40 p.m. on 29.03.2014 itself, in which it is stated that it took the airline 2 hours to give them their luggage, due to which they could not book their next Bagdora flight, and which caused great inconvenience to them.

5. The respondent Airline has drawn our attention to the PNR record of each of the 7 passengers, which records all the details of these passengers including the time of reporting at the counter, issuance of boarding pass, and deleting their name from the list of the passengers to fly. In this case, the time indicated when they were deleted is 10:49 a.m. Hence, the airline contends that these 7 passengers did not report to the boarding gate even up to 10:49 a.m., leading to their deletion from the list of flyers.

6. During the hearing, the counsel for the appellant also raised issues with respect to the State Commission wrongly allowing the condonation of delay and the District Commission not having the territorial issue. W e have carefully considered the orders of the State Commission, the District Commission, and other relevant records. The State Commission had the discretion to condone the delay if it found the cause sufficient, and in the present case, we do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the State Commission condoning the delay of 132 days. However,The State Com