KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President;
Sri K.R. Ramaswamy Iyengar, Member
and Smt. Susheela Cheluvaraju, Member
DR. (MRS.) KALYANI GANDHI—Complainant
versus
THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. INDIAN AIRLINES & ANOTHER—Opp. Parties
Complaint No. 207 of 1991—Decided on 25.4.1992
A mother of an injured child cannot claim compensation for mental agony and other injuries suffered by her due to the injury sustained by her child under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as she is not a 'consumer' under the Act.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(C), 2(1)(D), 2(1)(G), 14(1)(D) - CARRIAGE BY AIR ACT, 1972 - RULE 30 OF SCHEDULE II - MOTHER OF INJURED CHILD CANNOT CLAIM COMPENSATION FOR MENTAL AGONY AND OTHER INJURIES SUFFERED BY HER DUE TO INJURY SUSTAINED BY HER CHILD - CONSUMER ACTION IS NOT THE PROPER REMEDY FOR THE REDRESSAL OF HER GRIEVANCES - SHE MAY HAVE A REMEDY IN TORT WHICH SHE MAY PURSUE IN AN APPROPRIATE FORUM.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, the mother of an injured child, sought compensation for the mental agony suffered by her due to the injury suffered by her minor child, loss of pay, income, and expenses to be incurred for the proper rehabilitation of the child at the time of marriage. The incident occurred when the child was alighting from an aircraft at the airport, and the ladder collapsed, trapping her leg. The child had filed a separate complaint for compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainant was not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as she did not suffer any loss or injury due to any deficiency in service on the part of the airline. The court also held that the complaint was barred by limitation under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, as it was filed beyond the period of two years.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant was a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complainant was not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as she did not suffer any loss or injury due to any deficiency in service on the part of the airline. The court relied on the definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, which requires that the person has suffered loss or damage as a result of an unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. 2. The court held that the complaint was barred by limitation under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, as it was filed beyond the period of two years. The court relied on Rule 30 of Schedule II of the Act, which provides that any action for damages must be brought within two years from the date of arrival of the aircraft at its destination.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint.
Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal, President—In this complaint, the mother of the injured child has claimed compensation for the mental agony suffered by her due to the injury suffered by her minor child, loss of pay, income and the expenses to be incurred by her for proper rehabilitation of minor child at the time of marriage of the child.
2. The complainant averred that she along with her injured child Miss Manisha Yatin Gandhi, another daughter Miss Ambika, her husband Sri Y.R. Gandhi and her relation Sri Deepak travelled from Bangalore to Bombay on 22.6.1989 by Indian Airlines Flight IC-206 and reached Bombay by about 10.00 a.m. on that day.
3. The complainant further averred that while the minor child Miss Manisha Yatin Gandhi was alighting from the aircraft at Santa Cruz Airport, Bombay, the ladder that was bridging the ground and the Aeroplane collapsed trapping her left leg. The minor child was immediately shifted to Airport Hospital and from there to Dr. Balabhai Nanavathi Hospital for treatment. The complainant averred that she had incurred expenses for the treatment and would require further sum for the continuous treatment till she attained the age of 18-20 years. The complainant has further averred that she sustained loss of pay and the family members suffered a great mental agony and that she were to spend sufficient money for proper rehabilitation of minor child at the time of marriage. The complainant on the basis of these averments sought the relief as under-
“Wherefore, the complainant prays that this Hon’ble Commission be pleased to order the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 9,24,026.15 only as damages for the past, present and future, to the complainant (Annexure-D) in the interest of justice and equity.”
(Annexure-D)
1. Loss of Pay, Salary & Income Rs. 24,026.15
2. Damages towards expenses for proper rehabilitation of minor child at the time of marriage, by complainant Rs. 4,00,000.00
3 Damages incurred, and to be incurred by complainant and her family. Rs. 5,00,000.00
Rs. 9,24,026.15
4. The Opp. Party filed the statement of objections. The Opp. Party admitted the fact that the complainant’s minor child Miss Manisha Yatin Gandhi sustained the injuries due to collapsing of the ladder and trapping her left leg under it. The Opp. Party further averred that the right of action stood extinguished as per the provisions of Rule 30 of Schedule II of The Carriage By Air Act, 1972, as the complaint came to be filed beyond the period of limitation i.e., beyond the period of two years, so the complaint was barred by time.
5. The Opp. Party further averred that the injured child has already preferred a separate claim in Complaint No. 208/91 through her natural guardian, the mother, the complainant in the present complaint and so a separate claim by the mother of the injured child was untenable. The Opp. Party nextly averred that the complainant in this complaint cannot be classified as a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, so the complaint was untenable.
6. It is not disputed that the injured child Miss Manisha Yatin Gandhi has filed a complaint through her mother, the guardian, the complainant herein, in Complaint No. 208/91 before this Commission claiming compensation for the injury sustained by her due to the deficiency in service by the Opp. Party. The said complaint is pending on the file of this Commission.
7. Under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, ‘consumer’ has been defined as under—
‘consumer’ means any person who —
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;
(ii) hires any se