1.       Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner (Air India Ltd.) – airlines co., and perused the material on record.

2.       The dispute relates to loss and injury caused to the complainant due to deficient services of the airlines co. 

3.       The rival contentions have been succinctly articulated by the State Commission in its impugned Order dated 23.02.2018:

To narrate in brief, case of the Complainant is that, on 10-01-2014, he was supposed to return to New York via New Delhi-London.  For this purpose, he reached Kolkata Airport on the scheduled date in time.  On reaching there, he came to know that the concerned Air India flight to Delhi, AI-21 would start late.  Since he was in a hurry to catch the flight to London from New Delhi which was scheduled to depart Delhi Airport at 1.55 p.m. on that day, he urged the airline officials to accommodate him along with his wife in Flight No. AI-763, which left Kolkata Airport at 9 a.m. It is alleged that, although he made no bones about his exigency, airline officials still remained unmoved.  Ultimately, AI-21 left Kolkata airport at 12.30 p.m. and by the time he reached Delhi airport, the London bound plane left the airfield.  As a result, not only that he got stranded in New Delhi for 4 days, he had to incur heavy financial loss simply because of the apathetic attitude of the OP airline.  Accordingly, this complaint.

Per contra case of the OP is that, the delay occurred due to poor visibility at both New Delhi and Kolkata for which scheduled departure time of AI-021 was revised from time to time on that day.  It is stated that Flight No. VS 301 of Virgin Atlantic was not a code share flight with Air India and further there was no legal obligation upon the OP to accommodate the Complainant and his wife in its earlier Flight No. AI-763 since AI-021 was not a link flight of VS-301.  The OP also did not have any legal obligation to provide free hotel accommodation with transportation from airport or pay compensation for damages to the Complainant due to delay of Flight No. AI-021 and there was no negligence and irresponsible services of this OP, as alleged.

                                                       (extract from the State Commission’s Order)

4.       The District Forum vide its Order dated 10.04.2015 had dismissed the complaint. The complainant appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission had heard both sides, appraised the evidence, and through its Order dated 23.02.2018 allowed the appeal with cost:

Decision with reasons

- - - It appears that AI-021 was originally scheduled to depart Kolkata airport at 09.50 hrs. If AI-763 could start for Delhi at 09.00 hrs. braving the prevailing weather condition on that day, there was no viable reason, save and except what the Appellant alleged, for the AI-021 to miss the schedule. Be it mentioned here that the enormity of fog is not so severe in this part of the country and around 10 o’clock in the morning usually we witness drastic improvement in the weather condition. Therefore, in absence of material proof from the side of the Respondent, we cannot accept its contention as a gospel truth.

Further, if indeed the same flight landed Kolkata airport from Delhi late on that day owing to unfriendly weather condition, it was incumbent on the part of the Respondent to make alternative arrangement for those passengers, who were in urgent need of reaching the destination in time by accommodating them in its other flights.  If the Respondent made no such attempt, the buck stops at its door; Respondent cannot sidestep its entire liability attributing the delay to force majeure reasons. 

Another alibi put forth by the Respondent is that AI-763 was chock-a-block on that day.  Here too, we do not come across any documentary proof from the side of the Respondent. 

Put together, there seems reasonable ground to believe that simply on account of lack of wherewithal on the part of the officials of the Respondent, the Appellant had to endure so much harassment, not to speak about the incidental financial loss which was quite substantial in monetary term.

Since it was a single ticket for the entire journey from Kolkata to New York, it is naïve to believe that the Respondent was fully aware of the urgency of the Appellant to reach Delhi airport in time.  Insofar as the Respondent was fully aware of late arrival of the aircraft from Delhi to Kolkata airport which was again supposed to return to Delhi, Respondent cannot feign ignorance about the possibility of delayed running of AI-021. We believe, if the concerned officials of Respondent had slightest inclination, Appellant could easily be allowed to board AI-763. A consumer cannot be left in the lurch on account of the systematic lacunae of the service provider. Alas, the Respondent miserably failed to rose to the occasion. 

According to Sec. 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inade­quacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

Despite being fully aware of the fact that it would not be able to ferry the Appellant to Delhi Airport in time, the Respondent did not lend due cooperation to the Appellant in a bizarre show of antipathy towards public good.  No doubt, it was a clear instance of gross deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.  For this very reason, in our considered opinion, the Respondent cannot avoid making good the loss suffered by the Appellant.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondent with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the Respondent to the Appellant.  The Respondent is directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Appellant for the financial loss suffered by the latter while purchasing fresh air tickets, loss of mandays, extra fooding and lodging charges, besides the immense harassment, mental and physical stress and agony endured in the matter within 40 days hence, i.d., simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall accrue for the entire period of default. The impugned order is hereby set aside.

                                                      (extract of the State Commission’s Order)

5.       The airlines co. has filed the instant revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 23.02.2018 of the State Commission.

6.       We find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. We note in particular the extract of the appraisal made by the State Commission quoted, verbatim, in para 4 above. We find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the State Commission. We also find the award made by the State Commission (also quoted in para 4 above) to be just and appropriate. On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice. 

7.       The facts of the case are simple. The complainant had to travel from Kolkata to New York via New Delhi. He reached Kolkata Airport on time. On reaching there he came to know that the airlines co.’s concerned flight from Kolkata to New Delhi would depart late i.e. later than its scheduled time of departure. He urged the airlines co.’s officials to accommodate him (along with his wife) in another of its flight [which was scheduled to depart earlier than his concerned flight (which was running late)] so as to enable him to reach New Delhi in time to catch his connecting flight from New Delhi to New York. He was not accommodated. The flight on which he was booked departed late. By the time it landed at New Delhi his connecting flight from New Delhi had already left. Resultantly he was stranded in New Delhi for 4 days, in which period also facilitation and courtesy by the airlines co. to enable him to board an earlier flight from New Delhi to New York was not provided.  

8.       It is admitted that the airlines co.’s concerned flight from Kolkata to New Delhi was delayed (beyond its scheduled time of departure). It is also admitted that the complainant was not adjusted in an earlier flight (that would have enabled him to catch his connecting flight from New Delhi to New York). It is further admitted that by the time his flight landed at New Delhi, his connecting flight from New Delhi to New York had already departed.

9.       The airlines co., one, did not run its concerned flight on schedule, two, did not put him in an earlier flight at Kolkata which could have enabled him to catch his connecting flight from New Delhi, three, did not facilitate or provide courtesy to enable his early departure from New Delhi to New York (when he had landed late in New Delhi only due to the airlines co.’s flight from Kolkata to New Delhi running behind schedule).

10.     We find clear deficiency in service within the meaning of section 2 (1)(g) and (o) of the Act 1986, and see no reason to interfere with the findings and the award made by the State Commission.

11      The revision petition, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed.

12.    Needless to add that the District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law.

13.    A copy each of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to the complainant by the Registry within ten days.

14.    So disposed.