Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3348
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AVM J. RAJENDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER, ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
M/s. Kenya Airways – Appellant
Versus
Sh.Rajiv Agarwal – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO.583 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Amit Agrawal, Mr. Shwetabh inha, Mr. Sidhant Pandita, Mr. Amish Chadha and Ms. Sheena
For the Respondents: Mr. Dheeraj P. Deo
The court ruled that lack of proper notice in consumer proceedings violates procedural fairness, necessitating a remand for the appeal.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 19 - Appeal by airline against order of State Commission granting compensation for deficiency in service for failing to assist passenger to board connecting flight - Order allowed, as appellants were not aware of proceedings, hence, remanded back for fresh consideration. (Paras 1, 7, 15-18)
(B) Procedural due process - Necessity of notice to opposite party for fairness - The court confirmed that procedural fairness is paramount, leading to setting aside the lower court's order due to improper service. (Paras 15-17)
Facts of the case:
The complaint was based on delay by the airline causing the complainant to miss a connecting flight, leading to claims for compensation for travel cost, business loss, and reputational harm, seeking a total of Rs. 51.7 lakh.
Findings of Court:
The court found the appellants had not been properly notified of the lower court proceedings, warranting remand for a fair hearing.
Issues: Whether the appellants were given proper notice of proceedings and whether the compensation awarded was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that without proper notice, the right to a fair hearing is compromised, necessitating a remand for reassessment of the claims.
Result: Appeal disposed of, lower court order set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellants challenged a state commission’s order awarding compensation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments about lack of notice and improper compensation based on alleged deficiencies. (Para 4 , 7 , 14) |
| 3. the complainant claimed losses due to flight delays and missed connections. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. court emphasized importance of proper notice for procedural fairness. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
ORDER
1. 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 (Zimba
