Back
2017 Supreme(J&K) 1009
BEFORE THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION JAMMU
Sunil Hali, D.K. Kapoor, Member, J.
Ab. Karim Tantray and Others – Appellants
Versus
Go Airlines and Others – Respondents
Appeal No. 3748/Appeal
Decided On : 23-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sheikh Aleem.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the airline's right to refuse boarding for safety reasons and the burden of proof on the complainant in alleging deficiency in service.
Headnote:
Consumer Complaint - Airline Passenger Rights - Condition No. 10 of terms and conditions of contract of carriage between customer and Go Airline India Pvt. Ltd. - [Condition No. 10 of terms and conditions of contract of carriage between customer and Go Airline India Pvt. Ltd.] - The court discussed the rights of airline passengers and the obligations of the airline in refusing boarding passes. It highlighted the importance of medical clearance for passengers with health conditions and the airline's right to refuse boarding for safety reasons. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling on deficiency in service and the burden of proof on the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants had confirmed air tickets for traveling by Go Air from Jammu to Delhi. Boarding passes were declined for a sick passenger, leading to the denial of boarding for the rest of the complainants. The sick passenger passed away a week later. The District Forum Jammu allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay compensation and litigation charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the District Forum Jammu's finding of deficiency in service by the airline in refusing boarding passes to the complainants. It modified the order to exclude liability for a ticketing agency and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of boarding passes to the complainants, the rights of the airline in refusing boarding for safety reasons, and the liability for deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of medical clearance for passengers with health conditions and the airline's right to refuse boarding for safety reasons. It also highlighted the burden of proof on the complainant in alleging deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The court upheld the District Forum Jammu's order, modified it to exclude liability for a ticketing agency, and dismissed the appeal.
JUDGMENT :
1. Challenge in this appeal is to order dated 23.09.2015 titled Abdul Karim Tantray and Others vs. Go Airlines and Others, passed by District Forum Jammu whereby it allowed above titled consumer complaint titled passing an award in favour of the complainants and against opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 in terms of the following order:
"Therefore in view of the foregoing reasons the complaint filed by the complainants for redressal of their grievance is allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complaints an amount of Rs. 14,550 (Rs. 17,460-2910 = Rs. 14550). The complainants are also entitled to compensation of Rs. 5000/- to complainant No. 1 to 5 i.e. a sum of Rs. 25000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 5000/-. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file after its due compilation be consigned to record."
2. Not satisfied with the above order of District Forum Jammu, complainants have assailed the above order before this Commission on the grounds, inter alia, that instead of Rs. 20,484/- paid by complainant as airfare, District Forum has ordered the refund of Rs. 17,460/- that litigation expanses awarded are far low than to be reasonable and that complaint of complainant No. 6 is arbitrarily dismissed. It is prayed to enhance the damages and to suitably compensate complainant No. 6.
3. Respondents did not appear to contest the appeal although duly served. They have also not challenged the above order.
4. Heard.
5. Sh. Sheikh Aleem learned advocate appearing for the appellants has reiterated the grounds pleaded in the memo of appeal and while addressing arguments led us through record on file.
6. Controversy between the parties is very short and can be summarised thus. Complainants had confirmed air ticket for travelling by Go Air from Jammu to Delhi on 07.03.2011. They reported at Airport on right time and were issued boarding passes for Flight No. G8-154. However boarding pass was declined for Ms. Naseema Bibi ostensibly on the ground that due to her serious sickness (cancer and severe jaundice) she was unable to withstand journey by air and that no certificate of fitness to travel by air was produced on her behalf which is sine qua non in such cases. This irked the rest of the complainants (fellow travelers) so they too allegedly declined travelling in the said flight. Concerned Airline authorities at the airport declared them as a "no show" case, as per rules. The appellants grieve that due to non-travelling by said flight, Ms. Naseema Bibi breathed her last on 14.03.2011 i.e. a week after. A legal notice on behalf of the complainants was served on the respondents through advocate but the same was not responded to.
7. Aggrieved appellants filed consumer complaint as abovesaid and after condoning a delay of about 49 days DF Jammu passed abovesaid award.
8. The controverted facts are that appellants had confirmed tickets for travelling by air in Go Air flight No. G8-154 from Jammu to Delhi on 07.03.2011 and they had reported on time at the travelling counter of the OPs at Jammu Airport. They however did not travel as OPs denied boarding pass to Mst. Naseema Bibi on the ground of her serious sickness for which no certificate of fitness to travel by air from the treating physical etc. was produced. All the ticket holders therefore preferred not to undertake journey. This is an admitted fact that Mst. Naseema Bibi passed away on 14.03.2011 i.e. within a week from the date of above incident. While dealing with the factual position, learned Dist. Forum Jammu has very succinctly appreciated the point of controversy in para 2 of the impugned order at page 6 as under:
"Now coming to the merit of the case, it is to be noted that complainant is on admission that complainant No. 6 was only amongst complainants, who
