Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 38604

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Meena Ramanathan, In-charge President, V.V.Seshubabu, Member-Judicial
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Beerelli Rajeswar Rao – Respondent
FA.NO.495 OF 2020|FA.NO.727 OF 2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Suri Sravan Kumar, MVR Suresh & Associates
For the Respondents: M.Ramu

A complaint of deficiency in service against an insurer is not maintainable if the insured fails to follow mandatory intimation procedures under the policy, and an airline is not liable if it properly mitigates passenger inconvenience caused by technical flight disruptions.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Appeal against order of District Consumer Commission - Deficiency in service - Insurance claim - Essentiality of following policy conditions - Complainant must prove proactive intimation of claim to insurer - Failure to demonstrate cause of action against insurer precludes finding of deficiency - Appeal allowed. (Paras 1, 14, 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
The complainants booked international flight tickets and travel insurance. A technical snag in the aircraft resulted in flight delays and rescheduling. The airline provided hotel and meal accommodations. The complainants alleged deficiency in service against the airline and the insurance company, claiming the insurer failed to process their claim for travel interruption. The District Commission found the airline and the insurer jointly and severally liable.

Findings of Court:
The Commission observed that the airline acted reasonably by offering alternative arrangements, such as hotel accommodation and food, thereby mitigating the impact of the flight disruption. Regarding the insurance provider, the Court found that the complainants failed to adhere to the mandatory intimation protocols required by the policy and did not provide evidence of having formally initiated a claim through prescribed channels. Consequently, the insurer cannot be held liable for deficiency in service.

Issues: 1. Whether there was a deficiency in service by the airline due to the flight technical snag while they provided mitigation measures. 2. Whether the insurance company was negligent in processing the claim when the complainants failed to follow intimation requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: A consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service against an insurer is not maintainable if the consumer fails to fulfill mandatory policy intimation requirements and fails to provide proof of raising a formal claim. Additionally, an airline is not deficient in service if it takes necessary steps to accommodate passengers in the event of an unavoidable technical delay.

Result: Appeals allowed; impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of complaint regarding flight disruption and service deficiency. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. respective defenses of airline and insurer regarding duty and contractual obligations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. district court findings and grounds for appeal by parties. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. court evaluates whether insurance and airline obligations were fulfilled. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. concluding that no cause of action exists for deficiency claim. (Para 26 , 27)

QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN…IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-JUDICIAL

SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER

TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE

*******

Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon’ble In-charge President)

1. These appeals are filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 29.06.2020 passed in CC.No.08 of 2016 on the file of District Consumer Commission, Adilabad. The Opposite Party No.2 filed FA.No.495/2020 and the Opposite Party No.1 filed FA.No.727/2020. As both these appeals arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that – the Complainants are the husband and wife being residents of Ravi Nagar, Nirmal, District Adilabad. The Opposite Party No.1 is Air India, Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and Opposite Party No.2 is the General Insurance Company.

4. It is submitted that the Complainant’s son by name B.Ramakrishna who is a resident of New Jersey was having function at his house on 10.11.2015 at about 8:00 P.M. and the Complainant had to attend the said function. The Complainants booked flight tickets through online. The said tickets were booked on 16.09.2015 and the flight was scheduled to take off from Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad to Newark Liberty International Airport, New Jersey via Mumbai. The flight was scheduled to depart on 09.10.2015 at 9:15 P.M. from Hyderabad (Air India Air Bus A319). The seat Nos.24B and 24A (Economy) were confirmed. The said journey was insured with the Opposite Party No.2 vide policy B.No.4129/107573415/00/000 from 09.10.2015 to 07.11.2015. The premium was paid for Rs.6,634/-.

5. It is submitted that on the date of journey, the Complainants went to Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad as per schedule and after waiting for several hours, they came to know that the said flight is delayed and the Complainants were asked to stay in a hotel for delayed period. Subsequent to it, the Complainants had to miss the second flight which was scheduled on 10.10.2015 at about 1.30 A.M. and after 24 hours, the Opposite Party No.1 cancelled the said flight for the reason best known to them. The Complainants were made to wait in a hotel at Hyderabad for which they incurred huge expenditure besides mental and physical problems and due to this they missed to attend the function at their son’s house.

6. It is further submitted that the Complainants made a claim to Opposite Party No.2 as the journey was insured with them, but the Opposite Party No.2 did not respond and failed to pay the insured amount. Due to the acts of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants sustained pain and mental agony. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants instituted the complaint as prayed for.

7. The Opposite Party No.1 filed their written version denying the allegations made by the Complainants. The present complaint is not maintainable either on the basis of facts or in law. It is stated that the said Air India Flight AI 051 from Hyderabad to Mumbai was scheduled to operate with aircraft arriving from Mumbai as flight No.AI 619 on 9th October 2015, flight No.AI 619 had taken off from Mumbai on time. However, the aircraft developed a technical snag and returned to Mumbai Airport.

8. It is further stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 38604

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONMeena Ramanathan, In-charge President, V.V.Seshubabu, Member-JudicialICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. – AppellantVersusBeerelli Rajeswar Rao – RespondentFA.NO.495 OF 2020|FA.NO.727 OF 2020

A complaint of deficiency in service against an insurer is not maintainable if the insured fails to follow mandatory intimation procedures under the policy, and an airline is not liable if it properly mitigates passenger inconvenience caused by technical flight disruptions.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Meena Ramanathan, In-charge President, V.V.Seshubabu, Member-Judicial
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Beerelli Rajeswar Rao – Respondent
FA.NO.495 OF 2020|FA.NO.727 OF 2020