CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIAAIRLINES & 2 ORS. V. C.V. JOSEPH, MANAGER (RETIRED) SYNDICATE BANK, & 3 ORS.
Case No: REVISION PETITION NO. 2778-2779 OF 2013
Date of Judgement: 06 December 2023
Judges:
DR. INDER JIT SINGH
PRESIDING MEMBER
For Appellant:
MR. SUMIT KUMAR VATS, ADVOCATE
MR. KOSHY P.J. ADVOCATE
MR. K.K. VINOSH, ADVOCATE
For Respondent:
MR. KOSHY P.J. ADVOCATE
MR. K.K. VINOSH, ADVOCATE
MR. SUMIT KUMAR VATS, ADVOCATE
Facts:
Arguments by Complainants:
Arguments by Airline:
Airline failed to give any specific details regarding technical reasons for delays and cancellations. Unilaterally decided conditions protecting airline from liability are not reasonable. Passenger has no power to negotiate.
Even if genuine reasons, airline should have given valid reasons to passengers about delays/cancellations due to technical snags, weather etc. During cancellations, airline must provide hospitality, food, stay arrangements to affected passengers. Hence airline is guilty of deficiency in service. Complainants deserve compensation for harassment and mental agony.
Sections and Laws Referred:
Case Laws Referred:
No case laws were referred in the order.
Download Court Copy https://dreamlaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/task-2.pdf
Full Text of Judgment:
2. Notices were issued to the Respondent(s) in both the Revision Petitions. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 31.01.2023 (Air India Ltd.) and 04.05.2022 (Complainants)respectively.
4. Vide Order dated 30.09.2011, in the OP 256/2004 the District Forum has allowed thecomplaint and passed the following order:-
“In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall jointly and severallypay the complainants a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation along with Rs.2,000/- as cost within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The amount compensated will carry interest at the rate of 12% if not paid within theafore said period.”
5. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 30.09.2011 of District Forum, OPs appealed in State Commission (Appeal No. 276/2012) and the complainants also appealed before the State Commission (Appeal No.165/2012) for enhancement of claim. Vide order dated 25.03.2013 in FA Nos. 165/2012 and 276/2012, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the OPs (Appeal No. 276/2012) and partly allowed the Appeal filed by the Complainants(Appeal No. 165/2012) and passed the following order:-
“In the result, Appeal No. 276/12 is dismissed and Appeal No. 165/12 is allowed in part. The order passed by the Forum below is confirmed except in the resultportion. This commission modified the amount and compensation as Rs. 1 lakh instead of Rs.50,000/- which ordered by the Forum below and along with cost of Rs.2,000/-.”
6. Both the parties have challenged the said Order dated 25.03.2013 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
(i) The complainants have prayed for directing the OPs to pay the value ofthe ticket amounting to Rs.1,57,430/- with 12% interest from the date of filing complaint and directing the OPs to pay Rs.1 lakh each of complainant under section 14(1)(c ) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(ii) The OPs have prayed for setting aside the order of the State Commission.
7. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raisedin the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summedup below.
7.1 In addition to the submissions made in the Revision Petition, the complainantscontended that the delayed departure from the Thiruvananthapuram and the enrouting of the flight beyond the scheduled is the deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the OPs. The deficiency in service has been admitted by the OPs. Due to the latches and gross negligence and deficiency of service and irresponsibility on the part of the OPs, the complainants lost two days in the Airports unnecessarily and the very purpose of the journey by spending and loosing huge amount for the tickets and other allied expenses. The agony caused by the OPs’ deficiency of service leads to curtail the ectasy of Air Travel. Even though the OPs had admitted their negligence anddeficiency of service at the onset by their reply itself and thereby they were stopped from further defense, but they filed RP before this Commission after a lapse of 10 years alleging that the orders of the Fora below are bad in law, materially irregular and inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act to harass the Complainants unnecessarily at the belated stage. After filing the RP, the OPs have deposited theentire decree of Rs.1,11,593.62 as demand draft in favour of the complainants on 21.02.2014 before the District Forum and complainants received it on 13.03.2014,which was even prior to the stay order passed by this Commission on 10.11.2014 and the RP No. 2778-2779/2013 became infructuous. The principle of Estoppel is applicable against the OPs as they complied with order of the District Forum. The complainants relied upon the judgment of this Commission in RP No. 2726/2013 in Rajesh R. Architectural Engineer Vs. Saramma Itticheria that once the order iscomplied with and paid the amount in terms of the order no further appeal or revisionis maintainable.
7.2 On the other hand the OPs contended that the complainants purchased Airtickets to travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Chennai and Chennai to Kolkata andKolkata to Dibrugarh. On 18.12.2003, the flight was delayed and diverted to Coimbatore due to technical reasons, which is beyond the control of the OP Airline. The OP had communicated and made all necessary announcements in timely manner about the diversion of the route. There after, the complainants were taken to Bangaloreto avoid further delay in their journey and were provided accommodation to Grand Ashok, one of the highly reputed hotels. In the hotel special buffet was arranged for all layover passengers but the complainants insisted on availing dinner through room services. The duty manager informed them about the specially arranged for layover passengers and that food ordered through room service will be directly billed to the complainants. On 19.12.2003, the complainants continued their journey and reached Kolkata to catch connecting flight to Dibrugarh, but due to delay of incoming Aircraft, other related flights were delayed for the day, information was received that the flight was unable to take off due to technical reasons which further resulted in non-availability of aircraft at Kolkata to operate on 19.12.2003. The announcements for postponement was made around 12.30. Consequently, flight was combined with another flight and planned to operate on the sector Kolkata/ Dibrugarh/ Bagdogra/Kolkata with estimated time of departure at 9:40 hrs. of 20.12.2003. The OPs ensured providing hotel accommodation at Hotel Hindustan International, Kolkata and also served breakfast at Top Deck Restaurant from 9:00 hrs. In spite of the above services the Complainants filed the complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint. The State Commission modified the amount and partly allowed the Appeal filed by the complainants. The Fora below failed to appreciate the evidences placed by the OP Airline and had passed an order with error apparent on the face of the records. The flights were delayed and diverted due to technical reasons which were beyond the control of the OPs. Such circumstances always occur in thegeneral course of Airline Business and is beyond the control or anticipation of anybody. It is further contended that such contingencies are also duly included in theconditions of contracts of carriage which are printed in all air tickets including thetickets issued to the complainants. Both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions duly published on the ticket. As per the terms and conditions printed on thejacket of the ticket, “The Company reserves the right, without assigning any reason, tocancel, advance, reschedule, overfly or delay the commencement or continuance of theflight or alter the stopping place or deviate from the route of the journey or to changethe type of Aircraft in use without thereby incurring any liability in damages orotherwise to the passengers or any other person on any ground whatsoever”. Condition3 of Terms and Conditions of Carriage is reproduced herein “The company is not liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers orbaggage”. The flights in question were cancelled for reasons of technical fault/snag/weather conditions and the Respondents are therefore not entitled for any compensation on grounds falling within the aforesaid conditions. It is also submitted by the OPs that it is prerogative and primary responsibility of the Airline to ensuresafety of the passengers travelling on a flight and do whatever is necessary for achieving the same as under no circumstances the Aircraft safety can be compromised. Therefore, an aircraft which is not cleared for technical safety and CAR(Civil Aviation Requirement) Regulation cannot be allowed to operate and the samecan be classified as a force majeure circumstance and the petitioner airline cannot beblamed for deficiency of any service. Without the permission of the controlling authority, flights are not allowed to take off and such delays/cancellation cannot beattributable on the part of the Airlines. The OPs also referred to the guidelines dated 06.08.2010 issued by the office of Director General of Civil Aviation which wereeffective and applicable on the date of incident and even subsequently. The OPsrelied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Inter GlobeAviation Ltd. Vs. Satchidanand (2011 7 SCC 463). The OPs relentlessly providedall basic facilities to the delayed passengers and scrupulously followed the procedures and guidelines issued by the Competent Authorities with respect to events of delay,such as ground announcements and refreshments for convenience of the passengers.The Complainants suppressed material facts with respect to the accommodation provided to them at Hotel Hindustan International, Kolkata. The Complainants havemisguided the Forum by submitting that the reasons of delay/cancellation were not explained to them.
8. RPs 2778-2779/2013 and RP 1951/2015 arise out of same order of the StateCommission dated 25.03.2013, vide which two appeals filed by both the complainants and OPs against the order dated 30.09.2011 of the District Forum were challenged. As the issuesinvolved in these RPs are same/related, and parties are same, they are taken up together.
9. RP 1951/2015, which is filed by the complainants, is filed with a delay of 746 days. An IA/5069/2015 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. In IA, following reasons have been given for delay:
(c) The applicant is advised to have a good case before this Commission. Therespondent shall not be subjected to any difficulty or prejudices if this Commission condone the delay in filing the revision petition. Irreparable lossand injury shall be caused to the petitioner in case this application is dismissed.
10. We have carefully considered the reasons for delay/grounds for condonation as mentioned in the IA. Keeping in view the fact that cross RPs filed by OPs are being taken upon merits, and issues in both set of RPs arise out of same order of State Commission and District Forum, in the interest of justice and considering the sufficiency of reasons stated in the IA, we allow the IA and condone the delay in filing the RP 1951/2015.
12. Hence, we are of the considered view that the unilaterally printed terms and conditionson the jacket of the ticket, stated above, and condition 3 that “The company is not liable fordamage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers or baggage”, to which the OP Airline is taking recourse, is of no avail to OP Airline, unless there are sound and valid reasons for such delays and diversions/re-routing. In the instant case, the OP Airline has notbeen able to show any valid reason for such delays, diversions and cancellations, except thegeneralized statement of ‘due to technical reasons’. Even during the hearing before this Commission OP could not give any convincing reasons for such delays/ diversions/cancellations etc. Even when such delays/diversions/ cancellations take place due to validreasons, OP Airlines is duty bound to take care of such stranded passengers, many of whom miss the connecting flights, especially when these connecting flights are by the same carrier,as is the present case. The Airline need to provide them timely information about such delays/diversions/re-routing/cancellation etc., with valid reasons, subject to safety and security consideration, like bad weather conditions, technical snag of aircraft, late arrival of aircraft from previous sector, late arrival of crew/flight attendants etc. and/or any such reason(s) which do not impact the safety and security of the passengers or airline system orviolate any guidelines of the Airline regulator. Further, in case of cancellation or inordinate delays, such passengers need to be provided necessary hospitality, food, accommodation,transport etc. as per standard laid down protocols/guidelines of the Airlines. The facts andcircumstances of the present case show that OP Airline failed to perform their obligations inthe given situations and hence are guilty of deficiency in service towards complainants, entitling them to compensation. Hence, we agree with the concurrent findings of both thefora below with respect to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and entitlement of complainants to compensation, the District Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (for all the four passengers/complaints together), which was enhanced to Rs.1.00 lakh by the State Commission, which comes to Rs.25,000/- per passenger/complainant.
14. The pending IAs in the three cases, if any, also stand disposed off.