The court upheld the airline's decision to deplane passengers for safety reasons while modifying the excessive compensation awarded for inconvenience to Rs.3,00,000.

1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the Order dated 23.07.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (“the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No. 820 of 2017, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainants (Respondent No. 1 herein) was allowed.

2. For convenience, the parties in this Appeal will be referenced as per the Complaint filed before the Ld. State Commission.

3. The brief facts of the case, as per the complainants, are that the complainants consisting of a mother and two minor children are persons of Indian origin settled in Canada. They faced a series of unfortunate events during their journey from Chandigarh to Toronto on 02.09.2017. They had booked return tickets from Chandigarh to Toronto by Jet Airways and Air Canada. The journey from Mohali to Delhi was with Jet Airways, and from Delhi to Toronto was with Air Canada. On 02.09.2017, after boarding the Jet Airways flight from Chandigarh to Delhi, they faced issues obtaining boarding passes for the Delhi-Toronto flight. Upon reaching Delhi Airport, they had to wait for several hours before being issued Air Canada boarding passes. Once onboard the Air Canada flight, the washrooms were locked and emitting foul smell. It caused the minor daughter to vomit. This has led to rude behavior and mistreatment by the cabin crew. They were ultimately deboarded from the plane, left without their luggage or essential items, and faced significant distress and humiliation. They filed a complaint with the State Commission, alleging grave deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, and violations of human and child rights due to the behaviour of the airline staff.

4. In response, Jet Airways and other Opposite Parties (OPs) filed their joint reply, raising preliminary objections. They contended that the State Commission lacked territorial jurisdiction, that the complaint involved separate contracts of service for different segments of the journey, and that complicated questions of law and facts required a more detailed legal process than the summary proceedings under the Act. They argued that Air Canada was responsible for the segment where the alleged incident occurred, thus absolving Jet Airways of any liability. Air Canada, in its reply, contended that the complainants were not its consumers as the tickets were booked through Jet Airways. They were deplaned for safety reasons due to the illness of the minor daughter. They challenged the jurisdiction of the State Commission and denied discrimination of any sort by their staff. The replies of Jet Airways and Air Canada indicated denial of any responsibility for the incident and suggest procedural and jurisdictional defenses to counter the complaint.

5. The Ld. State Commission, vide Order dated 23.07.2018 in CC. No.820 of 2017 allowed the complaint with the following directions: -

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.07.2018, the Appellant /OP-1 filed Appeal No. 1841 of 2018 seeking the following:

“a. Allow the present first appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh;

b. Hold the Appellant Airline not guilty of deficiency of service and/or unfair trade practices.

c. Pass any further orders as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

7. It needs to be mentioned here that M/s Jet Airways (India) Ltd., had also filed F.A. No.1855 of 2018 against the impugned order dated 23.07.2018 in CC. No.820 of 2017 and the said First Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 23.02.2024.

8. In the instant First Appeal No.1841 of 2018, the Appellant/OP-1 mainly raised the following issues:

A. The State Commission failed to appreciate that the deplaning of the Complainants was only due to sickness of one of them, being a minor child of 11 years