PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

          Aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 293 of 2011, Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. (opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum) has filed the present petition, purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’).  The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 26.09.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh (for short the ‘District Forum’) in complaint case No. 603 of 2010.  The complaint before the District Forum was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-Airlines in not issuing the boarding pass to her on a Delhi-Hyderabad flight for which the complainant held confirmed / OK ticket.  The District Forum partly allowed the complaint of the complainant with the following directions:

          “From the above detailed analysis of the entire case, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint must succeed.  So, we accept the complaint and decide the same in favour of the complainant and against the Ops.  The Ops are directed to issue a complementary return ticket to the complainant (as agreed), on any domestic flights operated by them.  Ops are further directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant, jointly and severally, towards compensation for physical harassment, as well as mental agony caused to her, along with Rs. 10,000/-  as costs of litigation.  This order be complied with by the Ops, which one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which, they shall pay the awarded amount alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 04.10.2010, till the date of realization, apart from cost of litigation i.e. Rs. 10,000/-.”

          The State Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum.  Hence this petition.

2.      The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are succinctly stated in the order passed by the fora below and need no repetition at our end.  The main deficiency alleged by the complainant was that despite she having confirmed/OK ticket for a flight No. IT-802 scheduled to leave Delhi at 0925 hours and arrive at Hyderabad at 1135 hours, she was denied the boarding pass although other male member of the group were accommodated in the said flight.  After several hours, she was put on the flight of another Airlines viz. Spice Jet, which left Delhi around 1530 hours and reached Hyderabad late in the evening, as a result of which she could reach the ultimate destination Bidar on the following day at about 130 hours.  She being a woman remained apprehensive throughout the journey on flight as well as by road which caused her great mental torture and physical harassment.  It would appear that once the grievance was brought to the notice of the petitioner-Airlines, they as an act of remorse/goodwill gesture, offered her complementary return ticket on any domestic flight, which she declined  to accept and then filed the complaint.  The complaint was resisted by the petitioner-Airlines not disputing the above facts but they claim that there was no deficiency in service on their part and explained that complainant was denied boarding pass for the scheduled flight on the ground of over-booking of the flight.

3.      We have heard Mr. Vaisalya Vigya, Advocate counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Advocate counsel for the respondent and have considered their submissions.  Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the order passed by the fora below primarily on the ground that they are not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material brought on record.  In particular he contended that the award of compensation, besides directing the petitioner to provide a return ticket to the complainant was not at all called for as according to him, neither the terms and conditions of the petitioner-Airlines in relation to the denied boarding/cancellation/delays nor the guidelines issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation provide for grant of compensation to the said extent.

4.     After going through the guidelines issued by the DGCA, we had called upon the DGCA to explain the rationale behind issuing such guidelines.  An Officer i.e. Deputy Director, DGCA appeared and submitted  that the proposal to revise the said guidelines keeping in view the interest of the air passengers is under active consideration of the said Directorate.  So far as the terms and conditions of the petitioner-Airlines is concerned, it provides the following compensation / facilities in the case of “Denied Boarding”:

“1.         DENIED BOARDING            

  In a situation where a seat is not made available on the flight or in the class of service for which a guest holds a confirmed reservation, Kingfisher Airlines would first request for volunteer/s who are willing to give up their seat/s.  If a Guest voluntarily gives up his/her seat, Kingfisher Airlines will offer them benefits / facilities in exchange.

  However, if Guest has complied with all applicable check-in requirements and a Guest is denied boarding against his will, the guest will be compensated in the following manner:

a.    Financial compensation

(i)            INR 2,000/- or the value of the ticket whichever is less for flights having a block time of up to an including one hour;

(ii)          INR 3,000/- or the value of the ticket whichever is less for flights having a block time of more than one hour and up to and including two hours;

(iii)         INR 4,000/- or the value of the ticket whichever is less for flights having a block time of more than two hours.

(iv)         If the cost of the ticket is less than the amount of compensation indicated above, the airline will be liable to compensate an amount equivalent to the ticket cost.

(v)          The compensation referred to above will be paid by cash or credit voucher which will be good for refund.

b.    Additionally Guest shall be offered the choice among any one the following:

(i)            Refund of air ticket at the price it was purchased;

(ii)          A flight to the first point of departure;

(iii)         Alternate transportation under comparable / alternate mode of transport (whichever applicable), to the final destination.

(iv)         Alternate transportation under comparable / alternate mode of transport (whichever applicable), to their final destination at a later date at the Guests’ convenience, subject to availability of seats.

* The Guests affected due to Denied Boarding will be offered the choice between the compensation alternatives as listed above and once the option has been selected by the affected Guest he / she will not have the option to switch to another form of compensation.

Guest shall further be offered Meals and refreshment if he / she chooses Alternate transportation, in accordance with point (3) below.”

5.      Counsel submitted that in the case in hand, even after denying the Boarding Pass the petitioner-Airlines had not only arranged for the travel of the complainant from Delhi to Hyderabad through another flight but even arranged for her road transport through a car without any charge, which in any case they were not obliged to do even as per the above referred terms and conditions.  That apart,  it is pleaded that the petitioner-Airlines, as a goodwill gesture had offered a return domestic ticket to the complainant which was more than enough to redress the grievance of the complainant.  In support of his contention he seeks support from the decisions of this Commission in the case of Air France Versus Unik Traders & Anr. In First Appeal No. 518 of 1995, Dr. Arun Jain Versus Thai Airways International Ltd. II (2003) CPJ 201 (NC) and Mohinderjit Singh Sethi Versus Indian Airlines II (2003) CPJ 205 (NC).

6.      We have considered the said decisions, which in our opinion were rendered in different sets of facts and circumstances of those cases.  Those decisions cannot be squarely applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case.  In the case in hand, we cannot lose sight of the important factual position that the complainant is a woman and was member of a group.  While the male members of the group were issued boarding passes, she alone was denied and left at the Airport for several hours in a state of anxiousness as to how she would complete her journey and reach the destination.  Of course, she reached her destination, but after about 12 hours of the scheduled time that too after travelling of about six hours at night by road from Hyderabad Airport to Bidar.  This would have naturally made all her relatives and friends at the place of her departure and the destination about her safety and security concerns for the complainant.  There is no prised scale for measurement of compensation for the resultant mental agony and harassment, which a passenger or her relatives face in such a situation.  The compensation talked in Section 14 of the Act is not only confined to the award of monetary compensation for loss and/or injury suffered by a consumer but it has many other elements as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Versus Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:

          “The word ‘compensation’ is again of very wide connotation.  It has not been defined in the Act.  According to dictionary it means, ‘compensating or being compensated; thing given as recompense;.  In legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss.  Therefore, when the Commission has been vested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or service and compensation it has to be construed widely enabling the Commission to determine compensation for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer which in law is otherwise included in wide meaning of compensation.  The provision in our opinion enables a consumer to claim and empowers the Commission to redress any injustice done to him.  The Commission or the Forum in the Act is thus entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but also compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.”

7.      From the above, it is evident that the consumer fora are well within its rights to award compensation not only for the monetary loss or injury suffered by the complainant but also for injustice suffered by the consumer.  In the case in hand, going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances, we find that the fora below have done no wrong in awarding a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent-complainant for the mental agony and harassment faced by her, besides, the return domestic ticket, which was offered by the petitioner-Airlines itself to the complainant in the very beginning.

8.      We therefore see no illegality, material irregularities, much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which warrants interference of this Commission.    The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.