An airline may not be obligated to provide lodging facilities during flight cancellations, especially if there is no evidence of available lodging within the airport.

Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President—The opposite parties against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum are the appellants.

2. The complainant purchased a confirmed ticket to travel by flight No. 421 of Air India on 18.2.1995 from Singapore to India. When the complainant was waiting to board in the said flight, due to technical snag, it was announced that the flight was cancelled and the passengers possessing confirmed tickets would be accommodated in flight No. 411 expected to leave Singapore at 0.30 hours i.e., early hours of 19.2.1995. But when the said flight arrived the complainant was not issued with the boarding slip because there was no accommodation available in that flight and he was informed that he would be accommodated only in the next flight of No. 415 which would leave Singapore at 21.30 hours on 19.2.1995. As the complainant's permit had already been cancelled by the Immigration Authorities he could not go out of the Airport. Therefore, he was forced to stay in the Singapore Airport itself for about 26 hours. According to the complainant during the stay period it was the duty of the opposite parties to provide the boarding and lodging facilities in the Air Port itself but the opposite parties failed to do so and on account of that the complainant has suffered mentally and physically. The said act of the opposite parties amounted to gross deficiency in service. On these grounds, the complaint was filed for damages.

3. The opposite parties contended that it is false to say that the complainant was not given boarding facilities and the complainant and 7 others had given meal vouchers for APT Buffetarian which was open for 24 hours round the clock. It is denied that the complainant has suffered for want of lodging facilities and it is contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence held that the allegation that the complainant was not given boarding facilities is not true, but however it held that the opposite parties have not given lodging facilities and this amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Thus holding it awarded a compensation of Rs. 5/000/- to the complainant.

5. Now in the appeal it is submitted that the order of the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is incorrect. It is common case that since the complainant's permit was closed by the Immigration Authorities, he could not move out and the opposite party also could not take him out of the Air Port for lodging facilities. It is argued by the appellant/opposite parties that if the complainant had spent any amount for lodging facilities, under the rules they would be liable to reimburse him but there is no obligation for themselves to provide lodging facilities, and in any event there was no lodging accommodation inside the Air Port. On the side of the respondent/ complainant it was then submitted mat in the Air Port itself there is a hotel, but it is nowhere stated by the complainant that he wanted accommodation in that hotel and the accommodation was denied. Further even if there was hotel within the Airport there must be lodging accommodation available to accommodate the complainant because other passengers might have already engaged the accommodation there. The District Forum in its order has not stated that there was lodging accommodation within the Air Port.

6. Considering these circumstances, it cannot be held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Consequently, the appeal is allowed; and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.