Back
2010(1) CPR 352 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
R.C. Jain, Presiding Member and Anupam Dasgupta, Member
Pawan Hans Helicopter Limited —Appellant
versus
Sri Pasang Dorji Sona and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 346 of 2009 with First Appeal No. 381 of 2009
Decided on 9.2.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant in F.A. No. 346 of 2009 and Respondent No. 2:Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No 1 in F.A. No. 381 of 2009:Mrs. Ginny J. Rautray, Advocate. (in both F.A.s)
For the Appellant in F.A. No. 381 of 2009:Ms. Bansuri, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where helicopter was provided to lessee under lease agreement and lessee had the sole right to requisition schedule and reschedule its, flights, the lessor would not be liable for advancing the departure time without notice to holders of confirms tickets for journey and lessee alone would be liable for the deficiency in service.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g)—Deficient service—Appellant lessor of helicopter—Government of Arunachal Pradesh lessee thereof—Lessee having sole right requisition, schedule, unscheduled flights—Lessor only required to provide helicopter flights in accordance with the requisitions—Respondent No. 1/Complainant holding confirmed ticket missed the flight due to advancing the departure time without prior notice to holders of confirmed tickets for journey—In view of lease agreement appellant cannot be fastened with liability—State of Arunachal Pradesh directed to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to complainant for deficiency in service. (Para 8)
Result: Appeal No. 346 allowed and Appeal No. 381 partly allowed.
Anupam Dasgupta, Member—The complainant (respondent no. 1 in both these appeals) filed a complaint (no. AP/CP-16/2002) before the Arunachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Naharlagun (hereafter, ‘the State Commission’) alleging deficiency on the part of the State of Arunachal Pradesh (represented through Secretary, Civil Aviation Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh) and Pawan Hans Helicopter Service, Naharlagun (hereafter, ‘Pawan Hans’) alleging that on 08.10.2001, the Pawan Hans helicopter flight from Naharlagun to Guwahati departed from Naharlagun at 09.50 a.m. instead of the scheduled departure time of 10.30 a.m., without any intimation to the complainant though he had a confirmed ticket for travelling from Naharlagun to Guwahati on that day. The complainant further alleged that as a result of this deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, he was unable to travel to New Delhi by catching the connecting flight from Guwahati and failed to appear at the office of Alliance On-Line Services Private Limited in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi on 09.10.2001 in pursuance of that company’s letter dated 17.09.2001 and thus accept the offer of appointment as Legal Advisor in the said company on monthly remuneration of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant accordingly prayed for award of a sum of Rs.13.90 lakh on various counts, including loss of salary for three years, reimbursement of costs incurred and compensation for tortious liability.
2. After detailed consideration of the matter including documents produced by the parties as well as the evidence brought on record, the State Commission, by its order dated 10.08.2009, directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant, jointly and severally, the sum of Rs.4.60 lakh within two months from the date of the said order, with the stipulation that failure to do so would entitle the complainant to interest on the said amount @ 9% per annum from the date of the order till final payment.
3. Aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission, both Pawan Hans and the State/Government of Arunachal Pradesh have come up in appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for Pawan Hans and Ms. Banusri, learned counsel for the State/Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Mrs. Ginny J. Rautray, Advocate represented the complainant in both these appeals.
5. The main contention of Mr. Kumar on behalf of Pawan Hans is that the State Commission has erred in holding Pawan Hans jointly and severally responsible, along with the State of Arunachal Pradesh to comply with the order of award in favour of the complainant because Pawan Hans operated the said helicopter service from Naharlagun under a specific lease agreement dated 29.06.2000 executed with the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Under clause 3.1 of the said lease agreement, the Lessor (Pawan Hans) agreed to provide one helicopter for exclusive use of the Charterer/Lessee (State of Arunachal Pradesh) and its authorised persons. According to clause 3.2, the Charterer/Lessee (Government of Arunachal Pradesh) had the sole right to requisition scheduled/unscheduled flights as required from time to time and Pawan Hans, as the Lessor, was required to provide helicopter flights in accordance with such requisitions. Further, according to the evidence of the Assistant Director of Civil Aviation, Government of Arunachal Pradesh before the State Commission, it was an admitted position that the State Government had taken the said helicopter on lease from Pawan Hans and it was the State Government which collected fare from the passengers and managed the flight timings and destinations. It was also an admitted position that on 08.10.2001, the helicopter flight departed from Naharlagun at 09.50 a.m. instead of the scheduled time of 10.20 a.m. with the approval of the authorised representative of the Civil Aviation Department of the State Government. Thus, if there was any deficiency in service in operating the helicopter flight on
