M/s. Indian Airlines (presently known as “Air India Ltd.”) have challenged the common order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisision in Appeal No. 329 of 2012 (appellant-Indian Airlines) and Appeal No. 575/2011 (appellant K. Balachandran Thampi). These two are cross-appeals filed by the OP and the complainant, arising out of the same matter before the District Forum. The District Forum had allowed the complaint of Mr. K. Balachandran Thampi and the appeal of the OP/India Airlines has been dismissed by the State Commission.
2. From a perusal of the records, pleadings of the parties and arguments before the fora below, we find that OP/Indian Airlines has expended considerable amount of effort in justifying the delay and eventual cancellation of the flight. Their focus on the manner in which the delay and cancellation were handled vis-a-vis the passengers, has been much less than required as the complaint is about the deficiency of service to the passengers resulting from the manner of handelling of the delay and cancellation. It is not whether delay was technically justifiable or not. The case of the complainant is that:
“The complainants reached the Airport well in advance and boarding passes were issued to them for their entry to the aircraft. The copies of the Boarding passes are produced as Exhibits P-4 and P-4(a). However, all the passengers were instructed to get down from the aircraft for reasons best known to the officials only and at no point of time the reasons were explained to the complainants even after repeated enquiries. The complainants boarded the plane two times and deplaned. Even though the complainants had informed the urgency of their trip to Bangalore, no reasons were stated by the officials of the opposite parties and at last at 10 P.M. on 19.5.2006 they were informed that the flight was cancelled and the passengers would be given the refund of flight charges or they could travel by the next day’s flight.
The complainants were shocked on getting the information as they had to be at Bangalore at least by 8 A.M. on 20.5.2005 and there was no possibility of reaching there by any means before that time. If the officials of the opposite parties had informed earlier that the flight would be cancelled, the complainants could have travelled by the Deccan Airlines which left the Airport by evening. The officials were assuring the complainants that they could go to Bangalore even though it would be a bit late and the complainants also were expecting to reach Bangalore on 19.5.2006 itself on the assurance of the officials of the opposite parties.”
3. In their written response before the Forum, the OP/RP have gone into considerable details of the nature of the mechanical breakdown in the aircraft and the extent of effort put in to have it rectified, before finally deciding to cancel the flight in the interest of passengers’ safety. However, specific response to the issue raised in the complaint is contained in a single paragraph which reads as follows:
“All the averments contained in paragraph 5 and 6 are incorrect and hence denied. All communications and information passed on to the passengers were absolutely correct according to the prevailing circumstances of that time. As stated earlier the opposite parties cannot weigh and consider each and every passenger’s urgency and purpose of their journey. If at all there were other flights from Trivandrum to Bangalore on that day definitely the opposite parties would have considered and rendered all possible help to the complainants to avoid any inconvenience to the complainants.”
4 Considering the case of the two sides, the District Forum decided to allow the complaint, awarding Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 4,000/- as costs to the complainant. While doing so, the Forum has observed:
“In the present case before us, the opposite parties have not produced any evidence to show that the delay was duly informed to the passengers. While cross examining, DW1 had deposed that “The delay in disclosing that the flight is cancelled prevented the complainant from taking alternative arrangements to go to Bangalore (Q) Surface transport was available (A)”. Further DW1 has deposed to the question put by the complainant’s counsel that the complainants might have enquired whether the flight will go or not and that DW1 was not sure about it. Further DW1 has deposed that the Airport Manager co-ordinates the entire affairs. DW1, admittedly, is a person who is not competent to speak about the technical aspect. Hence the averments in Ext. D2 stands unproved. The exact reasons as to why the flight was not operated would only be known to Indian Airlines, but when the flight was delayed the opposite party should have made some alternative arrangements to make the passengers travel in another flight. But in this case the complainants were made to wait for about 6-8 hours without any information. Just leaving the passengers like this is nothing but callous approach and gross negligence signifying a total unconcern to passengers’ woes.”
5. As already observed, the State Commission not only agreed with the decision of the District Forum but also substantially enhanced the quantum of compensation awarded to the complainants. In this behalf the State Commission has observed that :
“The learned counsel for the appellants in Appeal No. 757/11 (respondents in Appeal 329/12) submitted that it is the callous attitude of the airlines which caused much trouble and mental agony to the complainants for not informing the delay of their flight. He pointed out that as per Ext. D2 the opposite parties/appellants were well aware that the flight was having technical defect at the time of arrival at Thiruvananthapuram at 4 pm itself. The 2nd complainant had to appear for an entrance examination for P.G. Diploma Course in Advertising and Public Relations of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication at Bangalore. The counsel also admitted that the passengers were boarded twice in the plane on the hope of onward journey but immediately deplaned and only at about 10 p.m., the complainants were informed about the cancellation of the flight. Though the passengers were offered refund of flight charges for the next day flights, the complainant could not reach Bangalore in time to attend the examination which would be held in the morning of 20.5.2006. It took about 7 hrs. to inform the passengers regarding the cancellation of the flight. So also delay in informing the cancellation prevented the complainants from taking other airlines flights on 19.5.2006 itself. It also prevented the complainants from taking alternate conveyance to Bangalore also. The counsel also submitted that the evidence adduced by the opposite parties was through an employee from the Administrative Branch who does not have direct knowledge. DW1 does not have any competency regarding the technical defects of the flight. It is also admitted that DW1 has no direct knowledge about the instance regarding the cancellation of the flight IC 909 on 19.5.2006. He also deposed that he was only aware of the details of airlines only and he was not competent to speak about the flight details of other airlines.”
6. We have carefully perused the records and heard Mr. Vikash Soni on behalf of the RP/OP. A perusal of the grounds of revision itself shows that even at this stage the focus of the petitioner is primarily and substantially on justification of the delay and eventual cancellation of the flight and its concern with eventual safety of the flight and the passengers. Once again the revision petitioner has failed to focus on the evidence which have lead before the fora below which could show that conscious and sufficient efforts were made to understand the impact of this delay from about 4.00 pm to 10.00 pm on the passengers and eventual cancellation of the flight thereafter, the revision petitioner has instead sought to exonerate itself on the basis of the rules (Non-International Carriage (Passenger and Baggage) Rule 3(3). There is not even an attempt to explain why did the RP/OP choose to tender evidence of an employee before the fora below, who had no knowledge of the impact of the delay and cancellation of the flight, on the concerned passengers.
7. In our view, the revision petitioner has miserably failed to make out any case for intervention of this Commission in exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is completely devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs. | 
