State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indigo Air Lines, Interglobe ... vs 1.Parupalli Hima Prathyusha on 12 December, 2025
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.No.841 OF 2020
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.No.84/2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, KHAMMAM
Between:
Indigo Air Lines, Interglobe Aviation Ltd.,
(Indigo), R/o.Global Business Park,
Gurgaon, Haryana State, India.
Rep. by Rahul Kumar,
working as Associate General Counsel.
........Appellant/Opp.Party No.1
And:
1.Parupalli Hima Prathyusha, D/o.Amarchand, Age: 23 years, Occu: Student, R/o.H.No.11-3-39, Nehru Nagar, Khammam City.
2. Praneetha Modumudi, D/o.Satya Dev, Age: 24 years, Occu: Student, R/o.Nirmal Hospital, Deshaipet Road, Warangal City and District.
.........Respondents/Complainants
3. Yatra Online Private Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, Travel Agency in Gurgaon, Haryana, 1101, 11th floor, Tower B, Unitech Cyber Park Sector, Gurugram, Haryana - 122001.
.........Respondent/Opp.Party No.2 Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 : M/s.A.Venkatesh Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants : Sri Nelson Mathew Counsel for the Respondent/Opp.Party No.2: M/s. N.Pratap Kumar QUORUM :
HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI. K.RANGA RAO, MEMBER - (JUDICIAL) FRIDAY, THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE ********** Order : (PER HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT)
1. This appeal is filed U/s. 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Opposite Party No.1, praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 passed in 2 CC.No.84/2018 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Khammam and allow the present appeal; dismiss the CC.No.84/2018; pass such other and further orders as this Commission deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellant is the Opposite Party No.1, the Respondents 1 & 2 are the Complainants and Respondent No.3 is the Opposite Party No.2 in CC.No.84/2018.
3. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The Complainants are the Medico students. They booked flight tickets for the return journey from Dehradun to Hyderabad by paying Rs.6,400/- approximately, i.e., Rs.3,300/- and Rs.3,100/-. The flight was booked on 01.02.2017 through Yatra Online and the ticket was confirmed through Indigo. The return journey from Dehradun to Hyderabad was scheduled on 25.02.2017 at 12.30 P.M. and the Complainants reached the Airport by 12.00 P.M.
4. To their dismay, the Complainants were informed that the flight was cancelled and re-scheduled on 24.02.2017 evening at 6.00 P.M. There was no prior intimation about this to the Complainants either in written or through a message on their respective mobile phones, as a result of which they faced much inconvenience as they had to stay at the airport for six hours. They purchased two tickets by spending huge amounts and boarded the evening flight. The Complainants vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Parties, issued legal notice on 15.10.2018 claiming damages of Rs.40,000/- each for the inconvenience caused to them. A reply notice dated 24.10.2018 was received by the Complainants with false averments. Hence, the complaint is filed praying to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the damages of Rs.40,000/- each for the mental agony undergone by the Complainants.
35. The Opposite Party No.1 filed their written version stating that the Complainants have concealed material facts in order to mislead the Commission below. On 03.02.2017, the Complainants had themselves raised a re-scheduling request by calling the call centre of Inter Globe Aviation Limited/Opposite Party No.1, accordingly the staff of Opposite Party No.1 merely complied such request in strict accordance with the binding terms of the contract between the Complainants and the Opposite Party No.1 and after due confirmation.
6. It is further stated that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The Complainants filed the complaint against „Indigo Air Lines‟, a wrong entity, which is defective and liable to be dismissed as such qua Inter Globe Aviation Limited. Further, the said flight tickets from Dehradun to Hyderabad were booked through a third party online travel company 'Yatra Online Pvt.Ltd.,‟ (Opposite Party No.2) having its operations under the name and style of „Yatra‟.
7. In the instant case, the Indigo Flight was re-scheduled only on receiving a voluntary re-scheduling request from the Complainants which is squarely covered by the legal and contractual provisions. On account of failure to report at the check-in counter for their re-scheduled flight on 24.02.2017, they were declared as „Counter No-Show‟ and the entire booking amount of the Complainants was liable to be forfeited by Inter Globe Aviation Limited. Therefore, this Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to pay any amount to the Complainants for their alleged mental agony or inconvenience.
8. The Opposite Party No.2 filed their written version stating that in the instant case, the Complainants having booked the flight tickets by using the online platform www.yatra.com have become "User" and by virtue of having "accepted" the terms of the Master User Agreement. The said Agreement is the governing contract by virtue of acceptance by the Complainants as well as by virtue of 4 the provisions of the Information Technology Act of 2000. Clause- 21 of the Agreement clearly states:
"This agreement and each TOS shall be governed by and constructed in accordance with the laws of India without reference to conflict of laws principles and disputes arising in relation hereto shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Gurgaon, Haryana."
9. It is submitted that this Opposite Party is an online ticketing service provider and travel agent, providing facility through the medium of internet and phone. This Opposite Party is not responsible for flight services provided under the bookings made by customers. Therefore, any allegations of deficiency in service can be maintainable only against Opposite Party No.1. On 03.02.2017, the Complainants themselves called the airline for making changes in the flight timings and airline made the changes accordingly and the Complainants were advised to pay the re- scheduling charges before the travel or at the airport on the day of travel, but the Complainants had not paid the same. Consequently, the airline cancelled the flight on 24.02.2017 at 6.05 PM. This Opposite Party is not concerned with the cancellation, nor was aware of the same. The cancellation was done by the Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, the complaint against this Opposite Party No.2 is liable to be dismissed.
10. Before the Commission below, the complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. The Opposite Parties filed evidence affidavit. Ex.B1 to B7 are marked on their behalf.
11. The District Commission, after hearing and considering the material on record, allowed the complaint in part directing the Opposite Party No.1 to pay Rs.20,000/- to each Complainant, with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of complaint (i.e., 18.12.2018). And also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards costs to each Complainant. Time for compliance is one month from the date of order.
512. Aggrieved by the above orders, the Opposite Party No.1 preferred this appeal contending that the Commission below failed to consider the following grounds:
The District Commission does not have jurisdiction and authority to admit a joint complaint under Section 12 (1) (c) of 1986 Act. The Respondents did not seek any permission to institute a joint complaint under Section 12 (1) (c) read with Section 2(1)(b)(iv) of 1986 Act. The entire proceedings and consequent impugned order are vitiated by such grave jurisdictional error. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be allowed on this ground.
The District Commission failed to appreciate and rather ignored the entries regarding the „voluntary re-scheduling request‟ made by the Respondent No.1 and 2 contained in the booking system of the Appellant.
The District Commission failed to appreciate that despite re-
scheduling tickets, the Respondents failed to report to the check-in counter 45 minutes before the scheduled time of departure of flight on 24.02.2017. Therefore, the entire booking amount liable to be forfeited and Respondents were declared as „Counter No-Show‟.
The District Commission failed to appreciate the entry relating to refund of Rs.3,709/- contained in the Annexure-E of the written version dated 14.02.2019.
13. The docket order dated 09.12.2025 goes to show that -
"Counsel for appellant present and heard. Counsel for R3 present on virtual and heard. No representation for R1 & R2. Arguments are treated as heard. Reserved for orders."
14. The main issue that needs to be reasoned is -
(i) Whether the ticket was re-scheduled by Opposite Party No.1 without intimation? And
(ii) Whether the Opposite Party No.1 refunded the ticket amount as pleaded?6
15. Points (i) & (ii):-
A perusal of the records reveals the following facts necessary for deciding the issues on hand:
Complainant No.1 Parupalli Hima Prathyusha was stated to travel from Dehradun to Hyderabad on Saturday, 25.02.2017 at 12:35 hrs. So also Complainant No.2 was to travel on the same flight. In their complaint, it is pleaded that they reached the airport for check-in at 12 O‟ clock on 25.02.2017 but they were informed that the tickets were re-scheduled for an evening 6 P.M. flight. It is their submission that the tickets were re-scheduled by the Opposite Parties without prior intimation. For their sudden re- schedule, the Complainants faced much inconvenience and were forced to purchase the tickets by the evening flight, which were very expensive.
16. The Opposite Parties have defended themselves on the grounds that a re-scheduling request was received by the call centre staff of Opposite Parties from the Complainants themselves. As a matter of business practice, a verification check was done on the details known only to the passengers. The tickets were re- scheduled to 24.02.2017 and on account of the Complainants‟ failure to report at the check-in counter on time, they were declared as „Counter No-Show‟ and the entire booking amount is liable to be forfeited.
17. On 25.02.2017, when the Complainants reported at the counter of Opposite Party No.1, as a service gesture, this Opposite Party made arrangements for travel for Complainant No.2. However, she did not accept the offer and the amount was refunded to the account of the third party online travel company through whom her ticket was originally booked. The Opposite Party No.1 has filed vide Ex.B5, the boarding passes stamped on 25.02.2017 and also the printed ticket for both the Complainants on 25.02.2017.
718. The Complainants have failed to establish any alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. They have only filed the boarding passes and tickets dated 25.02.2017. There are no details available of their flight being re-scheduled to 24.02.2017 and their having paid a huge amount to board the evening flight. On such sketchy material, we are unable to comprehend the reasons for deficiency and negligence. Moreover, for a flight departing at 12:35 P.M., the Complainants have stated in their complaint that they reached the airport at 12 O‟ clock which is against the rules and regulations of the carrier.
19. The Commission below gravely erred in partly allowing the claim which is not duly supported by any material evidence.
20. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 passed in CC.No.84/2018 by the District Commission, Khammam.
The Appellant is permitted to withdraw the statutory deposit made to the credit of this appeal, together with accrued interest thereon, after lapse of Revision time.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer on the System; corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Court on this the 12th day of December‟ 2025.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/c PRESIDENT MEMBER-JUDICIAL
Dated : 12.12.2025
*UC