APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON:  15^th   DECEMBER  2017

ORDER

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 30.03.2012, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 888/2010, Subbaiah Koneru & Anr. vs. Thai Airways International Public Co. Ltd. & Anr., vide which, while partly allowing the appeal, the order dated 05.05.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad in Consumer Complaint No. 745/2009, filed by the present respondent, allowing the said complaint, was modified.

2.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the two complainants Subbaiah Koneru and Srinivas Rao Bontha booked flight tickets for travel with the opposite party (OP-1), Thai Airways International Public Co. Ltd. through the travel agent, OP-2 Anarkali Travels (P) Ltd. as per the following itinerary:-

          1.      Travel on 24.11.2008, Hyderabad to Bangkok;

          2.      Travel on 26.11.2008, Bangkok to Shanghai;

          3.      Travel on 28.11.2008, Shanghai to Guangzhou;

          4.      Travel on 01.12.2008, Hongkong to Bangkok.

3.      The complainants paid a sum of Rs. 1,47,400/- for the air fare and a sum of Rs. 30,800/- for hotel accommodation as stated in the consumer complaint.  The complainants left for their journey as per schedule on 24.11.2008 for travel from Hyderabad to Bangkok.  However, they could not undertake further travel from Bangkok to Shanghai on 26.11.2008 due to some law and order problem at Bangkok, which led to the seizure of the airport at Bangkok and subsequent cancellation of various flights.  The complainants alleged that the OP-1 Airlines failed to inform the complainants, well in advance regarding the prevailing situation in Bangkok about the non-operation of flights, resulting in a lot of inconvenience and harassment to the passengers.  The complainants could not proceed with their further schedule due to lack of cooperation on the part of the OP-1 and for not extending help like providing accommodation, transport etc.  The complainants had to make arrangements on their own for their accommodation at high cost and also to make arrangements for their travel to Cambodia, from where they travelled to Kuala Lumpur and returned from there to Hyderabad.  The complainants alleged that the OP-1 could not avoid the responsibility to take immediate steps for the safety of the passengers, but on the other hand, they left the complainants to their own fate and at the mercy of the protestors and the mob at the airport.  The OP-1 should have made arrangements to move the stranded passengers out of Bangkok.  The complainants filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking award of an amount of Rs. 4,78,480/- as the expenses incurred in making alternate bookings and as compensation for mental agony etc.

4.      The consumer complaint was resisted by the OP-1 Airlines, by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that this was a case of force-majeure conditions, which were beyond the control of the OP-1.  Even then, they took steps to accommodate all the passengers safely, without them being exposed to the protestors.  There was not a single incident of any injury or harm to the persons present at the airport.  The OP-1 had taken steps to accommodate the passengers at the airport and also to provide hospitality to them.  The consumer complaint should, therefore, be ordered to be dismissed. 

5.      The District Forum partly allowed the consumer complaint vide their order dated 05.05.2010 and directed the OPs to refund the fare collected for the remaining journey/travel, except the fare that was collected pertaining to travel from Hyderabad to Bangkok.  The District Forum concluded that the complainants were not entitled for any other relief, as prayed for by them, because the inconvenience and loss suffered was not on account of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainants challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission.  Vide impugned order, the State Commission allowed the appeal partly and modified the order of the District Forum, saying that besides payment of refund of the fare for the balance part of the journey, the OPs shall pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to each of the complainants alongwith cost of Rs. 3,000/-.  Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the OP-1 Thai Airways is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

6.      During arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Thai Airways stated that the law and order problem that erupted at Bangkok was beyond their control and as a result of the same, hundreds of flights had to be cancelled.  The learned counsel stated that since there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, they were not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants.  The learned counsel has drawn attention to the reports about the situation that were published prominently in the newspapers at that time. 

7.      Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants argued that the OP-1 did not take any steps to provide them any accommodation or to make other arrangements, because of which, the complainants had to incur heavy expenditure on making alternative arrangements.  The learned counsel stated that the OP-1 did not maintain any communication with them and as a result of their attitude, they had to undergo a lot of harassment in a foreign country.  The learned counsel has drawn attention to the circulars issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Government of India in this regard, which had been relied upon by the State Commission, while passing the impugned order.  The learned counsel further stated that the petitioners had not challenged the order passed by the District Forum in appeal and hence, it was evident that they had admitted deficiency in service on their part.  The learned counsel further argued that the petitioners should have taken immediate steps to refund the amount of airfare to the complainants, but they had not done so till the moment.  This act on their part itself constitutes deficiency in service on their part.

8.      We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

9.      The main line of defence taken by the petitioner/OP-1 Airlines is based on the circular dated 06.08.2010, issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Government of India, in which, it has been stated in clause 1.4 that the operating airlines would not have the obligation to pay compensation in cases, where the cancellation of flights and delays had been caused by force-majeure conditions beyond the control of the airlines and such situation could not have been avoided, even if reasonable measures had been taken by the airlines.  The District Forum based their conclusion on the same argument and only directed refund of the balance amount of airfare to the complainants.  We are, however, not inclined to be in agreement with the contention raised on behalf of the OP-1 Airlines.  The Thai Airlines have their headquarters in the country Thailand, whose capital is Bangkok and hence, the said Airlines, were expected to exercise greater responsibility towards their own passengers who travelled with them from India and were supposed to travel further in that very Airlines, as per the itinerary already drawn up and the tickets etc. issued.  As per the own version of the Thai Airlines contained in their written statement, they made arrangements to accommodate the passengers at the Airport itself and provide them hospitality.  The minimum facility expected from the OP Airlines was to maintain an effective communication with their own passengers on minute-to-minute basis and try to make them confortable in every possible manner, under the given circumstances.  They should have made arrangements for their hotel accommodation and also provide them the necessary transport facilities.  The State Commission have rightly quoted from the circular dated 06.08.2010 of the DGCA, in which it has been stated that in the case of delay in flights beyond 24 hours, the hotel accommodation with meals etc. should be provided to the passengers.  Even if, the delay was due to reasons beyond the control of the Airlines, they could not have avoided their responsibility towards the passengers, who were stranded at the airport due to law and order problem and there was a risk to their security as well.  At least, the OP-1 Airlines should have taken care of the basic needs of the passengers, even in the wake of force-majeure conditions.

10.    Another interesting feature of the whole episode is that till now, the Airlines have not taken any steps to refund the airfare for the balance journey to the passengers, which was the least expected from them under the given circumstances.  At the time of hearing before us as well, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not advance any reason as to why the OP-1 Airlines had not refunded the balance airfare to the complainants.  This act on the part of the OP Airlines constitutes deficiency in service and callous attitude of the highest standard, for which they are liable to compensate the complainants.

11.    After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission passed the impugned order, as per which, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been ordered to be provided to each of the complainants in addition to the refund of the air fare for the balance journey.  Since the complainants have not challenged the said order by way of any further appeal/revision petition etc., we feel that there is no reason to enhance the amount of compensation allowed by the State Commission.

12.    Based on the discussion above, this revision petition fails and is ordered to be dismissed.  The impugned order passed by the State Commission is upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.