J K Mittal vs Kingfisher Airlines Ltd

THE complainant No.1, who is a practicing Advocate booked air tickets for travelling from Delhi to Bhubneswar and Bhubneswar to Delhi on 12.03.2008, on the website of opposite party No.1, Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. The complainant No.1 was issued one ticket on Flight No. IT -4608 from Delhi to Bhubneswar and the other ticket on Flight No. IT -4677 from Bhubneswar to Delhi. When the complainant reached the Airport at Terminal -1A of IGI Airport on 12.3.2008 and sought issue of the Boarding Pass of the Flight No. IT -4608, he was told that opposite party No.1 did not operate any flight from Delhi to Bhubneswar and he was directed to take flight No. DN 608 operated by opposite party No.2 Deccan Aviation Ltd., from Terminal -1B of the Airport. The complainant therefore, had to take a cab and reach Terminal No.1B to board flight No. DN 608. On return from Bhubneswar to Delhi, the complainant was issued Boarding Pass by opposite party No.2, for Flight No. DN 677, against the ticket sold and issued by opposite party No.1 for flight No.IT -4677.

THE case of the complainants is that opposite party No.1 claimed to be a five -star airlines, rendering premier services to its flyers, whereas opposite parry No.2 was a Low Cost Airline and the fares on the flight of opposite party No.2 were far cheaper than the fares on the flights operated by opposite party No.1. According to the complainants, the opposite parties were indulging in unfair trade practices by booking tickets on the website of opposite party No.1, giving flight numbers of the said opposite party but making the passengers travel in the flights operated by opposite party No.2, a Low Cost Airline, thereby, deceiving the flyers by representing to them, that they would be travelling on Kingfisher Airlines, whereas in fact, they were to travel on Deccan Airways. The complainants have also given a comparison of the fares charged by opposite party No.1 with the fares charged by opposite party No.2 on the same sector, in order to show that by selling tickets for the flights operated by opposite party No.2 from its website and giving its own flight numbers on the tickets opposite party No.1 was charging a fare higher than which the opposite party No.2 would have charged from its customers. The complainants are therefore, seeking compensation to the extent of Rs.5.00 crores from opposite party No.1 and 2, besides a cease and desist order against the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2, restraining them from indulging in such unfair trade practices. Though, the complainants had also impleaded Director General of Civil Aviation and Union of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation as opposite parties No.3 and 4 and had also sought a direction to them to frame comprehensive guidelines or regulations regulating the flights operated by airlines to ensure that no airlines indulges into such a practice, the name of the said opposite parties were deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 06.1.2015.

IN its reply, the opposite party No. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., took a preliminary objection that since the ticket by complainant No. was purchased for only Rs.9,000/ -, this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On merits, it was alleged that opposite party No.1 is an affiliate company of opposite party No.2 since 2007, when the UB Group acquired a substantial stake in opposite party No.2 and thereafter the Scheduled Airline Business Undertaking of opposite party No.1 was at the relevant time in the process of being merged with opposite party No.2. It was also stated in the reply that as a part of its business endeavour, opposite party No.1 offered the facility of booking certain flights operated by opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1, for the routes of which opposite party No.1 did not operate and it is made explicitly clear at the time of booking that the flight would be operated by opposite party No.2. As regards fare of the flight, it is stated in the reply that the price of the ticket is related to the time when the booking is made and therefore, if for instance a passenger books tickets one month in advance, it would be cheaper than a ticket booked five days before the flight. It has been denied that the different fares are being charged by opposite party No.1 and 2 for the tickets booked at the same time for the same day travel. Opposite party No.2 has contested the complaint on the same ground on which it has been opposed by opposite party No.1.

A perusal of the ticket issued to the complainant No.1 for travel from Delhi to Bhubneswar on 12.3.2008 would show that though it was disclosed in the said ticket that the flight would be operated by Deccan, the flight No. given was Kingfisher Airlines IT -4608 and admittedly the word "IT" is used only for flight operated by Kingfisher airlines; and not for the flight operated by Deccan Airlines. Similarly, in the ticket issued to him for travel from Bhubneswar to Delhi on 12.3.2008, though it was disclosed in the ticket that the flight would be operated by Deccan, flight No. given in the said ticket was Kingfisher Airlines IT -4677. The Boarding Pass issued to the complainant for travel from Bhubneswar to Delhi on the basis of the ticket issued by opposite party No.1, would show that the number of the flight which was operated by opposite party No.2 and in which the complainant travelled from Delhi to Bhubnesar was 677 with use of the prefix "DN" as against the prefix "IT" indicated on the ticket. In the itinerary issued to the complainant from travel from Delhi to Bhubneswar, the number of the flight in which he travelled on that day was shown as DN -608. This would show that the opposite party No.2 was using the prefix "DN" against serial number of its flights.

ON the tickets issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant No.1 from its website, it was clearly stated that he would be travelling from Delhi to Bhubneswar on Kingfisher Airlines flight No. IT 4608 and on the return journey from Bhubneswar to Delhi, he would be travelling on Kingfisher Airlines flight No. IT -4677. Though, it was stated on the ticket that the aforesaid flight would be operated by Deccan, in our view that by itself would not be sufficient information to the flyer that he would be travelling on a flight having no connection with the Kingfisher airline. On the ticket issued to the complainant No.1, only the name of the Kingfisher was printed along with the photograph of an aeroplane and there was no mention of the name of the Deccan Airlines; except writing the word "Deccan" against the words ''operated by''.

IT is admitted position that opposite party No.1, Kingfisher Airlines was not operating any flight on Delhi Bhubneswar route. The said opposite party itself claims that it was booking tickets of the Deccan Airway flights on these routes, on which it was not operating. It is thus evident, that for the same flight, Kingfisher Airlines was selling tickets on its website giving flight number as Kingfisher Airlines IT -4608 and Kingfisher Airlines IT -4677; whereas opposite party No.2, Deccan Airways was selling tickets for the same flight giving their numbers as DN -608 and DN -677 respectively. Not only was opposite party No.1 changing the flight number by adding digit ''4'' to the flight numbers given by opposite party No.2, it was also using the prefix ''IT'', which admittedly was being used for Kingfisher Airline flights. On the top of it, opposite party No.1 was also using the words Kingfisher Airlines before flight No. IT -4608 and IT -4677. As a result, an unwary flier, who does not scrutinise the ticket very minutely, is likely to believe, despite the ticket containing the statement ''Operated by Deccan'', that he was buying a ticket for travelling on a Kingfisher Airline flight. This becomes important, considering that there is no plausible explanation forthcoming from the opposite party No. 1 as to why they changing the number of the flight by prefixing the digit ''4'' and had prefixed the word ''IT'', used for the flights operated by Kingfisher Airlines and also gone to the extent of using the words ''Kingfisher Airlines'' before IT -4608 and IT -4677.

EVEN if the flier is vigilant enough to read the ticket very carefully, he is likely to presume that though the flight would be operated by Deccan Airways, it will be so operated under the banner, control and management of Kingfisher Airlines, and therefore, he will get all the facilities and amenities, which are available on a regular airline, but are not available on a Low Cost airline.

IT will be futile, even to suggest that there is a no difference in the amenities and facilities available on the flights of a Low Cost airline, vis - -vis those available on a regular / premier airline. In fact higher fare is sought to be justified by the regular/premier airlines, primarily on the grounds of (i) extent and quality of the services whether on ground or in the flight, hired by them; (ii) the aircrafts they deploy and (iii) the crew hired by them. In his affidavit by way of evidence complainant No.1 has stated on Oath that opposite party No.1 claimed to be India''s first five -star Airlines and it was providing luxurious flights with various comforts such as on -board entertainment as well as good quality food etc., without any extra cost. He further stated that he was a member of King Club (frequent fliers) of opposite party No.1 and such members were being provided free lounge facilities at Airport where free snacks were also being served to them. Admittedly, such services are not available on the flights of opposite party No.2 Deccan Airways. The complainant has also placed on record advertisements issued by opposite party No.1 in newspapers, claiming to be India''s only five -star Airline. Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that opposite party No.1 was a premier Airlines offering luxurious services on its flights without any extra cost to the passengers, whereas opposite party No.2 was a Low Cost Airline providing no such amenities. Therefore, the services available to the passengers travelling on the flights of the Kingfisher Airlines were far superior to the services offered on the flights of opposite party No.2, Deccan Airways.

IT has also come in evidence that the fare charged by opposite party No.1 Kingfisher for travel on the same sector, on the tickets booked at the same time, for the journey on the same date and time was substantially higher than the fare charged by opposite party No.2 Deccan Aviation. The affidavit filed by complainant No.1 coupled with the print outs taken from the website clearly show that for travel from Delhi to Bhubneswar on 14.3.2008, the fare charged by Kingfisher was Rs.4800/ -, whereas the fare charged by Deccan Aviation was for Rs.3748/ -. Kingfisher Airlines was therefore charging a fare which was more than 25% higher than the fare being charged by Deccan Aviation. For travel on 15.4.2008 and 15.5.2008, the difference in the fare charged by opposite party No.1 and the fare charged by opposite party No.2 was for Rs.932/ -. The Fare Chart prepared by complainant No.1 on the basis of the fares taken from "makemytrip.com" would show that the price difference in the fare charged by opposite party No.1 and fare charged by opposite party No.2 was Rs.1076/ - Rs.1056/ -, Rs.1056/ -, Rs.1056/ - and Rs.1011/ - for travel on 14.3.2008, 10.4.2008, 15.4.2008,15.5.2008 and 26.5.2008 respectively. In percentage term, the price difference was more than 60% for travel on 14.3.2008. The fare charged by Kingfisher Airlines for travel on 10.4.2008, 15.4.2008 and 15.5.2008 and 26.5.2008 was more than double of the fare charged by Deccan Aviation. Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that the fare being charged by opposite party No.1 was substantially higher than the fare charged by opposite party No.2, for the flights on the same sector and same day even if the tickets were to be booked at the same point of time. Hence, it cannot be said that the difference between the fares charged by opposite party No.1 vis -a -vis the fare charged by opposite party No.2 was on account of the difference in the dates and time on which the booking was made.

IT thus stands proved that not only was Kingfisher Airlines projecting the flights of Deccan Airways as its own flights, it was also charging fares which were substantially higher than the fares charged by Deccan Airways, for travel on the same flights, even if one was to make booking at the same date and time. This evidently was being done without any appreciable value addition by the Kingfisher Airlines.

IT is claimed by opposite party No. 1, that they were providing the facility of booking on the flights of Kingfisher Airlines as well as the Deccan Airways flights on the website which would be useful to a flier seeking to travel to more than one destination, in the course of the same itinerary. We however, find no merit in this contention. Such a facility is available on all websites such as ''make -my trip.com'', and no passenger will pay a substantially higher fare only for availing such a facility, when he can go to any other website to book tickets for the flights of both, Kingfisher Airlines as well as Deccan Airways. He pays a fare which is substantially higher than the fare charged by a Low Cost airline, only because, he is made to believe that he will be travelling on a flight operated or atleast managed by Kingfisher Airlines. Had the intention of opposite party No.1 not been to misguide the passengers there was no need for it to add the digit ''4'' to the flights numbers of opposite party No.2, substitute the prefix ''DN'' by the ''IT'', and then also use the words Kingfisher Airlines, before the flight number, stated on the ticket. The act and conduct of opposite party No.1 Kingfisher Airlines, in our view amounts to use of unfair trade practice, for the purpose of earning huge premium particularly from unwary fliers, on the price charged by opposite party No.2 for travelling on the same flights.

THOUGH , the unfair methods and unfair or deceptive practices enumerated in Section 2(1) (r) of the Consumer Protect Act are not exhaustive, to method and practice adopted by opposite party No.1 Kingfisher Airlines would be specifically covered in sub -clause 1(ii), since a person purchasing tickets of the flights operated by opposite party No.2 from the website or the offices of opposite party No.1, or from the agents appointed by the opposite party No.1, is likely to believe that he will get the services, including facilities and amenities, which a regular/premier airlines provides on its flights, and it is on account of the aforesaid belief generated in his mind due to the misleading statements contained on the tickets, that he pays a price higher than the price charged by a Low Cost Airlines. Not only there is failure on the part of opposite party No.1 to disclose the material facts to the flier, the statements contained in the tickets are misleading and the impression given to him is false. We therefore, hold that opposite party No.1 Kingfisher Airlines had adopted unfair means and practices, while selling tickets of the flights operated by opposite party No.2, form its website.

THOUGH , we do not know as to how many tickets of the flights operated by opposite party No.2 were sold by opposite party No.1 in the aforesaid manner, it cannot be disputed that the number of such tickets must be very large. Though, it is not known how much amount opposite party No.1 collected from the fliers in the aforesaid manner, it can be safely said it has to be huge amount. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct opposite party No.1 Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. To deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/ - (Rupees Twenty five lacs) as compensation in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Government of India within six weeks from today. We also direct that one copy each of this order be sent to (i) The Director General, Civil Aviation (ii) The Secretary to Government of India, Department of Civil Aviation, to consider taking adequate steps to ensure that such unfair means and practices are not adopted by other Airlines operating from India. The complaint stands disposed of.