This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 28.3.2013, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No.319/2011, Jet Airways India Ltd. and others vs. Radha Kinkari Kejriwal, vide which, -1- while allowing the appeal, the order dated 23.5.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit I, Kolkata, allowing Consumer Complaint No.71/2010, filed by the present petitioner, was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the complainant who is a girl student, aged 20 years, studying at Cardiff University, U.K. booked a ticket with the OP/respondent Jet Airways in Flight No. 9W121 for travel on 9.12.2009 from London to Delhi, scheduled for departure at 2050 hrs. It has been stated in the consumer complaint that the complainant reached the Jet Airways Counter at London, Heathrow Airport, 70 minutes prior to the scheduled departure of Flight No. 9W121. However, the staff of the OP Airlines, refused to issue boarding pass to her on the plea that she failed to report at least 90 minutes prior to the scheduled departure of the flight. She was asked to wait beside the counter, but the said staff checked in five more passengers, who had come after the complainant, but still, they were issued boarding passes. The complainant was not allowed to travel by the said flight, and ultimately, she had to arrange an alternative air ticket of another flight, AI 188 of Air India for her travel to India on 10.12.2009 by spending an additional amount of Rs.83,292/-. The father of the complainant wrote a letter to OP-3, the Chairman of the Jet Airways, explaining the entire episode to him. Thereafter, a notice dated 16.12.2009 was also sent to OP-1, demanding explanation for the aforesaid act of the staff and their officers. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to refund the value of the Jet Airways ticket of Rs.62,178/- and also to pay the amount of Rs.83,292/- spent on the Air India flight taken from London and in addition, to allow damages of Rs.10 lakhs for mental harassment etc. and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

3. The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the check-in counter at London Heathrow Airport closes 75 minutes before the scheduled departure time of the flight and not 60 minutes as stated in the consumer complaint. However, as admitted by the complainant, she reported 70 minutes prior to the said departure and hence, she was late by 5 minutes. The complainant could not be accommodated on the said flight after the closure of that flight and hence, there was no deficiency in service on their part.

4. The District Forum after taking into account the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the OPs to refund the value of the Jet Airways ticket of Rs.62,178/- and also to pay the amount of Rs.83,292/- spent by her on the Air India ticket, as well as directed the OPs to pay a compensation of Rs.8 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OPs challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed vide impugned order and the consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed. It is against this order that the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

5. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant stated that the petitioner/complainant reached the check-in counter at 7.40 p.m. for the schedule departure of Flight at 08.50 p.m., which was 70 minutes prior to the scheduled departure. As per the learned counsel, the complainant was checked-in for the flight, but still, she was denied boarding for the said flight. There were five more passengers who were allowed to board the flight in preference to her. Consequently, she had to spend an additional sum of Rs.83,292/- for obtaining another ticket for travel to Delhi. The learned counsel has drawn attention to the letter written by the father of the complainant addressed to the Chairman of the Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (OP-3), in which he mentioned that five more passengers who arrived at the counter after her, had been given the boarding passes. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to an e-mail message dated

14.1.2010 from the OP-2, Mr. Narender Mansukhani, addressed to Mr. Arvind Jhunjhunwala, in which it is stated that two seats were available on the flight, when the complainant reached there. The learned counsel further stated that as per the documents of the OPs, the passenger was supposed to reach only 60 minutes prior to departure and not 75 minutes.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/OPs stated that admittedly, the complainant reached the check-in counter, after the same had been closed. According to her, she reached at 7.40 p.m., meaning thereby that she reached 70 minutes before departure against the stipulated time of 75 minutes. The learned counsel further stated that the e-mail message dated 14.1.2010, gives the final version of the OPs in which they stated that when the complainant reached there, two seats were available on the flight, but these were given to two other persons, who had reached earlier to the complainant. Moreover, this was an over-booked flight and three other passengers had already volunteered to opt out of the same and had been sent to the hotel accommodation. The learned counsel has further drawn attention to Regulation (EC No.261/

2004) of the European Parliament and of the Council on 11.2.2004, prescribing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in such cases. Under these provisions, a compensation of 600 Euros could be given to a passenger for flights, covering distance more than 3500 kms.

7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the regulations of the European Union were not applicable in the present case, rather the guidelines issued by the Director General, Civil Aviation, New Delhi Government of India, effective from 15.8.2010 were applicable. However, the OP had refused to grant compensation to her, taking the ground that she had reached late. The learned counsel argued that no notice was given to the complainant about the factum of over-booking etc. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has drawn attention to the orders passed in F.A. No.6 of 2014 decided on and in 27.11.2014. Randhir Singh vs. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers (P) Ltd. . Royal Jordanian Airlines Vs. Nanak Singh, as reported in MANU/CF/0045/2010

8. The learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn attention to the following orders in support of their arguments.

1. Dr. Arun Jain Vs. Thai Airways International Ltd., II (2003)CPJ 201 (NC)

2. K. Nagarjaih and others vs. Indian Airlines and another, II (2006 ) CPJ 72 (NC)

3. National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (formerly : Indian AirlinesLtd. and others vs. R.K. Agarwal and others, 2 (2012) CPJ 554 (NC)

4. Bhartiya Sanskriti Sansthan vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. and another,I (2013) CPJ 174 (NC)

9. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

10. As per the version given by the complainant herself, she reached the Airport at London at

7.40 p.m., while the scheduled departure of her flight was at 8.50 p.m. It is clear that she reached 70 minutes prior to the departure of the flight, whereas according to the OPs, she was supposed to reach the check-in counter 75 minutes before departure, and hence, she was late by 5 minutes. However, the parties have not produced on record any such documents/instructions/rules which lay own any fixed time for reporting at the check-in counter by the passengers. In any case, the version given by the OP Airlines makes it clear that even after she reported at the check-in counter, two passengers were given the boarding passes (although the Airlines has stated that they had reported before the complainant). It is made out therefore that for her failure to reach the check-in counter 70 minutes before the departure, she could not be denied the benefits/compensation which would be available to a passenger who had reported 75 minutes before departure.

11. The facts and circumstances on record establish beyond any doubt that this was an over-booked flight. As per the version of the Airlines, three passengers had already volunteered to opt out of the flight and had been sent to the Hotel accommodation. As per the final version given by the OP Airlines, although the said volunteers had left the Airport, the duty officer M.S. Pommi noticed that two seats were available and she did make efforts to provide the boarding pass to the complainant. However, according to the OPs, two other passengers who had reached earlier to the complainant were accommodated against those two seats. It is evident therefore, that the complainant deserves to be compensated in accordance with the declared policy on the subject for compensation under the Denied Boarding Category, as applicable for the said flight, leaving from the Heathrow Airport, London. As per the instructions issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi vide their letter no.23-15/2016-AED dated 1.8.2016, clause 3.2.2, under the heading, Denied Boarding, a maximum sum of Rs.20,000/- could be given to the complainant. However, as per the guidelines applicable for the European Union as obtained from the website, i.e. a www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel , compensation of Rs.600 Euros is to be given in a Denied Boarding case, if the distance to be covered is more than 3500 kms. Since the flight in question was to start from the Heathrow Airport for Delhi, the complainant shall be entitled to a compensation of 600 Euros for denied boarding.

12. In addition, since there is no evidence on record that the OP Jet Airways made efforts to arrange for her, a seat in any alternative flight, it is clear that she had to spend an additional sum of Rs.83,292/- for booking an alternative air ticket with Air India flight, AI-188. The complainant deserves to be given compensation to the tune of Rs.83,292/- for the additional money spent by her for boarding the alternative flight. The citations quoted by the petitioner, namely, Royal Jordanian Airlines Vs. Nanak Singh (supra) and Randhir Singh vs. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers (P) Ltd. (supra), C Prasad Bhat vs. Britsh Airways (Original Petition make it clear that adequate compensation has to be paid to the No. 168 of 196 dated 28.11.2002 passengers in the case of Denied Boarding. In the citations given by the respondent, Dr. Arun ), the passenger in question had reached the Jain Vs. Thai Airways International Ltd. (supra Airport late and by that time, the check-in counter had been closed. The passenger demanded a sum of Rs.35 lakhs as compensation. It was held that the Airlines was not at fault in that case and the complaint was dismissed However, the facts of the present case are different, in the sense that . two passengers were checked-in by the OP Airlines in the said flight after the complainant had reported at the Airport. The order made in Dr. Arun Jain Vs. Thai Airways International Ltd. ) is therefore, not applicable in the present case, In the case, (supra K. Nagarjaih and others the passengers reached the Airport late due to the vs. Indian Airlines and another (supra), break-down of the Army vehicle. The Airlines directed them to travel by executive class on payment of the difference in amount and subsequently, the extra amount charged was ordered to be refunded by the State Commission. This Commission did not find any justification to accept the revision petition in question. In the case, Bhartiya Sanskriti Sansthan vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. and another and National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (formerly : Indian Airlines also, the facts of the cases are not Ltd. and others vs. R.K. Agarwal and others (supra) applicable in the present case.

13. From the foregoing discussion, it is held that the complainant/petitioner is entitled to be provided a compensation equivalent to 600 Euros, as well the amount spent on purchasing the additional ticket i.e. Rs.83,292/-. This amount shall be payable by the OP Airlines to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. It is further directed that the said amount shall be paid by the OP Airlines within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the Airlines shall have to pay interest @ 12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. for the entire period.

14. As a matter of general observation, it may be stated that the Airlines do indulge in making over-booking in the flights, so as to ensure that the seats in the flights do not go vacant, in the event of certain passengers, not showing up at the appointed time. This practice causes a lot of hardship and inconvenience to the passengers who are left out from their scheduled flights, despite the fact that they had confirmed reservation for the flight. The policy to take care of such passengers and make arrangements to book them in the alternative flights in the shortest possible time, is opaque and no clear-cut guidelines etc. are available on the subject. The matter needs to be studied in detail by the Aviation Regulator, that is, the Director General, Civil Aviation, Government of India, and a rational policy needs to be evolved so that the harassment/inconvenience to the passengers left out from the over-booked flights is reduced to the minimum possible.

15. A copy of this order be therefore, sent to the Secretary, Department of Civil Aviation, Government of India as well as the Director General of Civil Aviation to hold deliberations on the issue and evolve a set of policy guidelines, so as to prevent avoidable harassment to the passengers/consumers in future. ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER