SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Saghir Ahmad & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
RAVNEET SINGH BAGGA—Appellant
versus
M/S. KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES & ANR.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8701 of 1997—Decided on 2.11.1999

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986Section 2(g)-Deficiency in serviceDeficiency in service has to be distinguished from tortuous Acts-For acts of commis.sionand ommission attributable to respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service relief under Act cannot be granted-Air ticket for travel to New York through respondent Airline via Amsterdam-Suspicion about authenticitYf)f visa raised at Amsterdam by respondents counter staffVerification proceedings initiated to check authenticity and comp~eted expeditiously:Scheduled flight for which, ticket was _ booked from Amsterdam left in meanwhile-Appellant sent by another latest available flight - Complaint demanding damage alleging deficiency in service - Respondents staff proved to have acted fairly and in bona fide manner-Respondent could not be held to be rendering inefficient servi~e-Not liable for damage, there being no deficiency in service.

       The deficienc) in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection.

       shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in purs~ance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency

       

       in service is upon the person .who alleges it.

       The deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the tortuous acts of the respondent In the absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist for grant of relief under the Act for the alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficieny in service. In case of bona fide disputes no wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in the service can be informed If on facts it is found that the person or authority redndering service had taken all precautions and considered all relevan t facts and circumstances in the course of the transaction and that their action or the final decision was in gcod faith. it cannot be said that there had been any deficienc> in service.

       If the action of the respondent is found to be in good faith"there is not deficiency service entitling the aggrieved person, to claim relief under the Act. The rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of that case for which no hard and fast rule can be laid down Inefficiency, lack of due care. absence of bo no fide, rashness. haste or omission and the like may _ be the factors to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service. (Para 6)

       In the instant case the complainant book for passage to New Yark through respondent airline. Flight was from Delhi to Amsterdam to New Yark from Amsterdam he was book for another flight of respondent. In addition he was book in another airline throught respondent for travel from Amsterdam to New Yark. At Amsterdam on ground of suspicion about authenticity of visa of appellant. respondents staff initiated verification proceedings to check same and verification proceedings were completed expeditiously In meanwhile, flight for which appellant was booked left. The appellant was sent by another latest available flight. Appellant alleging due to negligence of respondents staff he could not attend business

       

       meeting at New York resulting in loss sought for damages.

       Held: The respondent No. 1 cannot be . held to be guilty of rendering inefficient service because its staff at Amsterdam is proved to have acted fairly and in a bona fide manner keeping in mind the security and safety of passengers and the aircraft. It is not denied that the staff had found that the appellant was having two confirmed tickets from Amsterdam to New York - one in KLM Flight and·the other in TWA flight and that his photograph on the visa documents was a photocopy and not original which ordinarily was unusual. In view of two bookings and the visa papers being doubtful.

       the staff of the respondent Airlines took sometime to ascertain the truth and made all efforts to ensure that the complainant reached New York on the same day. The bona fide action taken by the staff of the respondent Airlines cannot be held to be a deficiency in service. The verification was necessitated on account of the unusual photocopy of his photograph on the visa documents. The National Commission also examined his earlier letters and the affidavit filed before it and found on facts that there existed some discrepancies. It was found that the complainant had been taking contradictory stands. On perusal of the whole record we are of the opinion that the respondents could not be held guilty of deficiency in service entitling the complainant for compensation as claimed.by him. It is true that for unforeseen reasons and suspicious circumstances not attributable to the complainant he had been subjected to great harassment and mental torture but it is equally true that for those circumstances none of the responder! ts was guilty (Para 7)

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       IMPORT ANT POINTS

       1. If on facts it is found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the course of the transaction and that their .action or the final decision was in good faith, it cannot be said that there had been any deficiency in service.

       2. Deficiency in service has to be distinguished from tortuous acts for which remedy is to file a suit for damages under common law; for acts of commission and omission which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service relief 4nder Consumer Protection Act cannot be granted.