V.N.PURI vs INDIAN AIRLINES CORPN.

PETITIONER was the complainant. He complained about the deficiency of service of Respondent-Airlines. He claimed not only the refund of the value of the air ticket purchased by him but also compensation of Rs. 60,000/-.

COMPLAINANT on 29-8-1994 was to board flight IA 493 of the Respondent at Delhi. The departure of the flight was 16.45 hrs. After the check-in he had gone through the security. But due to some reason, the flight was delayed and the passengers were requested to await the subsequent announcement. As a matter of fact, the air-craft had to come from some other place and after landing at Delhi, was to take off for jodhpur, etc. While the Complainant was waiting, he remembered that he had forgotten his life saving medicine at home. He therefore came out of the security check and again reported for boarding at 17.20 hrs. By this time, flight had been announced for 17.00 hrs. and all the passengers except the Complainant had since boarded the air-craft. Complainant could not board the aircraft as by that time tarmac officer had already decided to treat the Complainant as a case of "Gate No Show" as all the boarding and departure activities were completed by 17.20 hrs. The flight took off without the Complainant. It is the case of the Complainant that the door of the aircraft was still open, stair ramp had not been removed and cargo was still being loaded. He said that he should have been allowed to board the aircraft. Complainant also alleges that perhaps some other person has been accommodated in the seat given to him. We do not think any deficiency of service can be alleged against the Respondent. It is the Complainant who took the chance and went out and came back at 17.20 hrs. when the revised time of the departure was 1700 hrs.

AS far as the sale of the seat of the Complainant is concerned, he did not produce any proof to show that his seat was left vacant and aircraft took off with two seats empty. Both the District Forum and the State Commission have held that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent-airlines. Considering the whole gravamen of the matter, we do not think it is a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the CP Act. This petition is dismissed.