JUDGMENT

R.V. Raveendran, J.

1. Leave granted. Heard.

2. The Appellant, an aviation company operating an air carrier under the name and style of Indigo Airlines has filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 31.12.2009 dismissing its writ petition challenging the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Hyderabad, dated 18.9.2009 awarding Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as costs to the Respondent herein.

Facts found to be not in dispute

3. The Respondent and eight others were booked to travel on Indigo flight No. 6E-301 from Delhi to Hyderabad on 14.12.2007 scheduled to depart at 6.15 a.m. The Respondent reached the airport, obtained a boarding pass and boarded the flight at around 5.45 a.m. Due to dense fog, bad weather and poor visibility at Delhi airport the flight was delayed. An announcement was made that the flight was unable to take off due to dense fog and poor visibility, and that the flight will take off as and when a clearance was given by ATC. As Appellant was a 'low cost carrier' neither snacks nor beverages were offered. However sandwiches were offered for sale and the Respondent purchased a sandwich by paying Rs. 100. Around 11.15 a.m. an announcement was made that flight No. 6E-301 was cancelled and the passengers were given the following options: (a) refund of air fare; or (b) credit for future travel on Indigo; or (c) rebooking onto an alternative Indigo flight at no additional cost. As an extension of the third option, willing passengers were permitted to undertake the journey on the next flight, by combining the said flight (Flight No. 6E-301) with the next flight (Flight No. 6E-305) which was scheduled to depart at 12.15 p.m., subject to improvement in weather conditions and clearance by Air Traffic Control ('ATC for short).

4. As the same aircraft was to be used for the combined flight, several of the passengers including Respondent took the third option, and opted to continue the journey on the combined flight, by the same aircraft by remaining on board. Several other passengers, who opted for refund of their airfare or obtaining credit for future travel or for re-booking on subsequent flights of their choice, left the aircraft.

5. In view of the cancellation of flight No. 6E-301 and the DGCA regulations prescribing maximum duty hours for the crew, the crew of 6E-301 was replaced by the fresh crew of flight No. 6E-305. Even the combined flight No. 6E 305 could not take off on schedule as the ATC did not give the clearance. Several announcements were made about the delay on account of inclement weather conditions and the piling up of delayed flights queuing for take off. In the meanwhile on account of cancellation of flights and delaying of several flights, the airport was getting overcrowded and congested. As a consequence, the airport authorities advised the flights which had completed boarding but had not taken off for want of ATC clearance, not to send back the boarded passengers to the airport lounge, but retain them in the aircraft itself, as the airport was not capable of handling the additional load. The Respondent and some other passengers, who had opted for travel in the combined later flight by the same aircraft, protested about the delay and demanded lunch/refreshments as they were held up inside the aircraft. Each of the affected passengers, including the Respondent, was provided with a sandwich and water, free of cost around noon time. A further offer of free sandwiches was made around 3.00 p.m. However as vegetarian sandwiches were exhausted, the second offer by the crew was of chicken sandwiches. Respondent and others, who declined chicken sandwiches, were offered biscuits and water free of cost. Finally the ATC clearance was given at 4.20 p.m. and the flight departed at 4.37 p.m. and reached Hyderabad around 7 p.m.

6. When the flight reached Hyderabad, the Respondent and some other passengers were detained at the Hyderabad