Indigo Airlines Held Not Liable for Passenger No-Show: Supreme Court Ruling on Consumer Dispute

The case of The Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata & Anr. vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. revolves around a consumer dispute where the respondents alleged deficiency in service by Indigo Airlines for failing to accommodate them on a flight. The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether the airline was liable for compensation when passengers failed to report at the boarding gate in time.

Background of the Case

The respondents had booked tickets for an Indigo Airlines flight (6E-861) from Kolkata to Agartala on January 8, 2017. They checked in at the airport on time and received their boarding passes, but they did not reach the boarding gate before its closure. Consequently, the flight departed without them.

The respondents claimed that:

They had checked in on time and were issued boarding passes.
Indigo Airlines’ ground staff failed to inform them about the departure.
The airline did not allow them to board a subsequent flight without purchasing fresh tickets.
They had to stay in Kolkata for two days, incurring additional expenses.

As a result, they filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 3,77,770 for loss of wages, mental agony, and travel expenses.

Decisions by Lower Consumer Fora

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (West Tripura, Agartala)

The District Forum ruled in favor of the respondents, stating:

There was no evidence that Indigo Airlines made adequate announcements at the airport to call the passengers.
The airline should have provided assistance to help them reach the boarding gate.
The airline staff snatched their boarding passes, leaving them stranded.

The District Forum awarded Rs. 51,432 as compensation, along with an interest of 9% per annum.

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

The airline appealed the decision, but the State Commission upheld the District Forum’s order. The Commission increased the compensation for mental agony to Rs. 20,000.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)

Indigo Airlines challenged the decision before the NCDRC, but the Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that:

Since the airline had chosen to litigate over a small compensation amount instead of settling the issue, costs of Rs. 20,000 were imposed.
The airline was liable for deficiency in service.

Arguments by Indigo Airlines

Indigo Airlines contested the findings of the consumer fora, arguing:

Passengers are required to report at the boarding gate at least 25 minutes before departure.
The respondents failed to report at the boarding gate, despite having enough time.
They were classified as “Gate No Show” passengers, which is different from “Denied Boarding” cases.
The airline was under no contractual obligation to arrange an alternative flight without additional payment.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents claimed:

The airline should have ensured their presence at the boarding gate.
The staff did not inform them about the departure, leading to their exclusion from the flight.
The refusal to accommodate them on another flight without payment was unfair.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined whether the consumer fora correctly applied the law and whether Indigo Airlines was liable for deficiency in service.

1. Failure of Passengers to Report at Boarding Gate

The Court found that:

The respondents were issued boarding passes at 7:35 AM.
The boarding gate was closed at 8:58 AM.
Despite having more than an hour, the respondents failed to report to the boarding gate.

2. No Evidence of Deficiency in Service

The Court held that:

“The burden of proving deficiency in service lies upon the complainant. The respondents failed to establish that the airline was responsible for their failure to board the flight.”

There was no evidence to show that:

The airline failed to make announcements.
The respondents were misled by the ground staff.
The airline prevented them from reaching the gate.

3. Gate No Show vs. Denied Boarding

The Supreme Court clarified that “Gate No Show” passengers are different from “Denied Boarding” cases.

“Denied Boarding applies when an airline overbooks a flight, while Gate No Show applies when passengers fail to report at the boarding gate in time.”

Under Indigo Airlines’ Conditions of Carriage (CoC), “Gate No Show” passengers are not entitled to free rescheduling. The CoC was binding on passengers, and the respondents were responsible for their own delay.

4. Consumer Fora Misapplied the Law

The Supreme Court found that:

The consumer fora wrongly shifted the burden of proof onto the airline.
The respondents had failed to establish any deficiency in service.
The airline’s refusal to accommodate them on another flight without payment was justified.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

The orders of the District Forum, State Commission, and NCDRC were set aside.
The respondents’ consumer complaint was dismissed.
No refund was required from the respondents for the amount already withdrawn.

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling clarifies several key principles:

Passengers must report at the boarding gate on time.
Failure to board on time does not constitute “Denied Boarding.”
Airlines are not liable if passengers fail to comply with travel regulations.
Consumer complaints must establish a clear case of deficiency in service.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision upholds airline policies regarding boarding procedures and emphasizes the responsibility of passengers to adhere to airline regulations. The ruling reinforces that courts must not impose liability on service providers without clear evidence of deficiency in service.

Petitioner Name: The Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata & Anr..
Respondent Name: Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Kolkata, West Bengal.
Judgment Date: 28-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The Branch Manager, vs Kalpana Rani Debbarm Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category