NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member and Anoop kumar mendiratta, Member
Kenya Airways and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Rajiv Agarwal – Respondent
First Appeal No. 583 of 2019
[Against the Order dated 08.08.2018 in Complaint No. 666/2015 of the State Commission, Delhi] With IA/5393/2019 (Condonation of delay);
Decided on 22.7.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 – Airlines – Deficiency in service – Direction to refund travel and accommodation cost of Rs.1,20,000/- along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of business and Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of reputation – Procedural fairness is paramount – Facts and circumstances of case do not reflect, if appellants/opposite party had actual knowledge of proceedings – Tracking reports placed on record do not support service of notice and have not been controverted by any other document on record to presume valid service on ‘opposite party – Even on merits, issues raised by appellants/opposite party are of considerable significance and need to be considered by State Commission in first instance – Order passed by State Commission set aside and proceedings remanded back to State Commission for deciding the same in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to appellants/opposite party. (Para 17)
Result: First Appeal allowed.
ORDER
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member.—An appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on behalf of M/s Kenya Airways & Anr., (opposite party before the learned State Commission), assailing Order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the learned State Commission whereby the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent/complainant was allowed. Appellants have been thereby directed to refund to the complainant, travel and accommodation cost of Rs.1,20,000/- along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of business at Harare. Also Rs.5,00,000/- stands awarded towards loss of reputation.
2. Appellants and Respondents are hereinafter referred to as opposite party’ and ‘complainant’ respectively, as appearing in the complaint filed before the State Commission for sake of convenience.
IA No. 5393/2019
3. An application has been preferred by the appellants/opposite party for condonation of delay of 141 days in filing the appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No. 2/opposite party No. 2 (M/s Kenya Airways Ltd.) became aware of the proceedings before the learned State Commission only on 01.10.2018, when the certified copy of the impugned Order received at their Delhi office was forwarded to Mumbai office for further action. Further, on receiving the Order passed by the learned State Commission, appellant No. 2 forwarded the order to their counsel on 09.10.2018 for seeking advice on further course of action. On enquiry it was revealed that opposite party No. 1/M/s Kenya Airways as reflected in the complaint is not an entity and the address provided of opposite party No. 2/M/s Kenya Airways Ltd. is also incorrect. As such, possibly the summons/notices may have been served at an incorrect address. Thereafter, an application was filed for inspection of record on behalf of appellants/opposite party on 12.02.2019 and since the copy of the pleadings was unavailable with the appellants/opposite party, steps were taken for obtaining the same. After receiving the certified copies of the complaint on 26.02.2019, present appeal has been preferred on 14.03.2019.
5. In support of the submissions for condonation of delay, reliance is further placed upon order dated 14.11.2014 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in ATS Govindarajane v. Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Civil Appeal No. 10289/2014; order dated 02.05.2014 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Taipen Traders Ltd. v. M/s Bhawani Cold Storage & Ors., SLP (C) No. 4943/2014; order dated 24.11.2014 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinayakrao Shankarrao Borse v. Wasan Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., SLP (C) No. 39758/2013 and Saral Wirecraft Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 523.
6. The application has been opposed on behalf of the respondent/complainant on the ground that appellants were negligent and casual in filing the appeal and there is no reasonable explanation for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, for a period of 141 days.
7. We are of the considered opinion that sufficient reasons have been shown on behalf of the appellants explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. In the facts and circumstances, to prevent miscarriage of justice, delay of 141 days in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 5393 of 2019 is accordingly allowed.
First Appeal No. 583 of 2019
8. Factual matrix giving rise to filing of present appeal may be briefly noticed. A complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was preferred by the complainant alleging that in order to further his business interests and participate in business meetings scheduled at Harare (Zimbabwe) on 03.09.2014, tickets were booked by him in business class for travelling from New Delhi to Nairobi (Kenya) (KQ 221) by Kenya Airways for 03.09.2014 and, thereafter, from Nairobi (Kenya) to Harare (Zimbabwe) (KQ700). The tickets for the return journey were also accordingly booked for 04.09.2014 from Harare (Zimbabwe) to Nairobi (Kenya) and from Nairobi (Ken
Saral Wirecraft Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs & Ors.
Taran Jeet Kaur vs. G.S. Bhatia & Ors.
Interglobe Aviation Limited vs. N. Satchidanand
Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines &Anr.
Procedural fairness is paramount in course of adjudication of a consumer complaint.
The court reiterated that appeals must present substantial questions of law, and the discretion in condoning delays is limited and must be justified.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of a flight without prior intimation and failure to provide alternate arrangements constitutes deficiency in service under th....
Travel company – For a leading and professional Travelling Company it is the duty of the opponent No. 01 to brought to the notice of such vital facts to the complainant as she is a laymen but though ....
The insufficiency of compensation for consumer grievances due to service deficiencies was addressed, leading to an enhancement of the awarded amounts.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.