Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
ARUN SANGWAN - Appellant
Versus
INDIAN AIRLINES AND ANR. - Respondents
Consumer Complaint No. 57 of 2002
Decided on : 23-08-2012
Delay - Deficiency in Service - Indian Airlines - [Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 74, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21, Civil Aviation Directives] - The court discussed the delay in the flight, the rights of the passengers, and the liability of the airlines under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also referred to the Civil Aviation Directives in determining the liability of the airlines for the delay and the compensation claims by the passengers.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a Sales Manager, filed a complaint seeking damages for deficiency in service by Indian Airlines due to a delayed flight, causing him to miss an important conference and suffer mental and physical distress.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in the flight was due to accommodating stranded passengers from another delayed flight, and the airlines were not negligent in their duties. The court also noted that the complainant failed to prove any irreparable loss due to the delay.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in the flight, the rights of the passengers, and the liability of the airlines for compensation claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in the flight did not amount to negligence on the part of the airlines, and the complainant failed to prove any irreparable loss due to the delay.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
ORDER
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member - The Complainant, Sh. Arun Sangwan has signalled his annoyance by filing the above said complaint and is seeking damages in the sum of Rs. 30,00,000 (Rupees thirty lacs only), for deficiency in service by the Indian Airlines, OP1, because the flight of the Aeroplane IC 167 was delayed by approximately two hours.
2. The facts of this case are as follows. The complainant is a Sales Manager with Silicon Graphics, a Multi-National Company. He is an M.B.A. and was drawing salary of Rs. 5,00,000 pack, p.a., besides other perquisites, at the time of filing of this complaint. He has been travelling as per his business requirement. He is an Income Tax Assesse. He was to attend an important Conference of the Company, on 23.2.2001, at 11.00 a.m., at Mumbai. Therefore, he booked his ticket from the opposite party and the flight was scheduled to depart at 8.00 a.m., from New Delhi. The complainant arrived at the airport on 23.2.2001 at 6.30 a.m. At 6.40 a.m., it was announced that the departure of the flight was delayed but no rescheduled time was announced. At about 7.00 a.m., the counter opened and the complainant was informed that the flight would be departing at 8.20 a.m.. The complainant mentioned that he could go by the Jet Airlines Flight at 8.00 a.m., but he was misled into by the Check-in official that the flight would definitely take off at 8.20 a.m.. At 8.00 a.m., the boarding was announced at about 8.30 a.m., pilot announced that the flight is further delayed as he was not getting clearance from the Commercial Department. The complainant requested for being off-loaded so that he could take the Jet Airlines Flight at 9.30 a.m., but he was not permitted to deplane. The pilot was specifically explained about the entire situation by the complainant and requested for transfer back to the airport to meet the officials concerned.
3. One Mr. Abhay Pathak, Manager (Commercial), arrived at the aircraft and assured that the flight would take off at any time. Mr. Pathak gave some instructions to his staff who tried to forcibly herd back the passengers into the aircraft. They used foul language, when their move was resisted by the complainant. In the meantime, U.S. Pandey, Airport Manager, came to the aircraft and informed the passengers that the flight was waiting for passengers who were to come by another flight from Ranchi. The flight from Ranchi was to reach the previous evening but was delayed due to technical defect. The complainant was not allowed to transfer back to the airport for cancellation of the ticket. The complainant wanted that he should get back the refund of the ticket, but that was declined. No time for take-off was indicated. Under pressure from the complainant and other passengers, Mr. Abhay Pathak and U.S. Pandey gave written apology at about 9.55 a.m. wherein it was confirmed by Mr. Abhay Pathak, Manager (Commercial) as also by Mr. U.S. Pandey, the Airport Manager that the delay was due to non-arrival of the passengers from Ranchi, at the scheduled hour. The flight finally took off at about 10.15 a.m., after a delay of about 2.15 hrs and landed at about 12.15 p.m. The complainant reached his destination at about 1.15 p.m. instead of before 11.00 a.m. Consequently, the present complaint was filed before this Commission on 18.2.2002, wherein the complainant claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 30,00,000.
4. The opposite party has hotly contested this complaint. The defences enumerated by the OPs are these. Ranchi-Patna-Delhi-Mumbai Flight IC-810 developed some technical snag on 22.2.2001. It was compelled to make an emergency landing at Patna. For the rectification of snag, both men and material were immediately sent from Delhi on 22.2.2001 and accordingly that flight was rescheduled to take off on 23.2.2001 at 0700 hours from Patna for arrival at Delhi at 08.00 hours. The stranded passengers of IC-810 who were bound for Mumbai, were to be accommodated on Flight No. IC-167 so as to ena
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
