Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.C. Gupta, President, Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor and Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
RAM SINGH SALOOJA - Appellant
Versus
AIR INDIA LIMITED AND ORS. - Respondents
Appeal Case No. 2298 of 2008
Decided on : 13-01-2009
Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate, for the Appellant; Nemo., for the Respondent
The court established that the airline's responsibility to provide essential services and inform passengers of delays is limited under the contract of carriage, and certain delays may be deemed beyond the airline's control.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Airline Passenger Rights - The court held that the airline's failure to provide wheelchairs and the delay in the departure of the flight did not amount to deficiency in service, as these issues were deemed to be beyond the control of the airline and not a matter of essential service under the contract of carriage.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and his family booked air tickets to visit New York for medical purposes. They were not provided wheelchairs at the airport as assured, and the flight was delayed without prior information, causing inconvenience.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the airline did not commit to providing wheelchairs as an essential service, and the delay in departure was deemed unavoidable and beyond the control of the airline. The complaint was dismissed as meritless.
Issues: Alleged deficiency in service by the airline, specifically related to the failure to provide wheelchairs and the delay in the departure of the flight.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the airline's obligation to provide wheelchairs and inform passengers of flight delays was not established as a matter of essential service under the contract of carriage, and the delay in departure was deemed beyond the airline's control.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as meritless, concurring with the reasoning of the District Consumer Forum.
ORDER
K.C. Gupta, President - This appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 20.11.2008 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) whereby his complaint was dismissed, being merit less.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that appellant along with his wife Smt. Krishna Salooja and grand-daughter-in-law Ms. Gagandeep Kaur Salooja wanted to visit New York in September 2007 and for this purpose, they got booked air tickets. They wanted to go New York for medical checkup and replacement of pacemaker of Smt. Krishna Salooja, wife of appellant. Respondent No. 3 assured of providing best facilities. However, appellant and his wife were not provided wheelchairs at the airport, although, respondents had assured to provide wheelchair and further flight No. 111 at Amritsar was delayed by 5 hours but information was not given to them in advance due to which they were harassed and unnecessary inconvenience was caused to him.
3. Alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed.
4. Respondents contested the complaint and stated that they never committed to provide wheelchairs as a matter of essential service to the passengers under the contract of carriage. Airline takes note of request of passengers at the time of booking of the tickets and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. They next stated that passenger could not be informed in advance for short delay. However, every care is taken to keep the passengers informed about the departure time. They denied other allegations.
5. Appellant has not been able to show that there was any deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Delay in departure of flight, sometimes is unavoidable, beyond the control of airline and the passengers could not be informed in advance as sometimes delay takes place due to foggy weather or due to congestion at the airport or due to some other reasons for which airline cannot be held negligent. There is no evidence that appellant had asked airline authorities to provide wheelchair and further there was no contract with the respondents to provide wheelchair.
6. We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed as meritless.
7. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge.
