KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 121/2013

JUDGMENT DATED: 14.09.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 101/2011 of CDRC, Alappuzha)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Air India Ltd., Collis Estate, M.G. Road, Cochin now having office at Airlines House, Durbar Hall Road, Cochin represented by its Manager.

                                                              (By Adv. M/s Menon & Pai)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

T.N. Suresh, Swarna Garbha, Pazhaveedu P.O., Alappuzha.

(Party in person)

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER                     

This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 101/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (will be referred to as the District Commission for brevity) against the Judgment dated 31.01.2012.

2.  The allegations in the complaint in brief are that on 25.10.2010 the complainant and his friends had booked flight tickets from Mumbai to Cochin and the time of the journey was scheduled as 25.10.2010 at 01.00 in Air India (A1) 690.  But a delay of 5 hours occurred and the journey commenced only at 6 A.M.  No alternative arrangements were made and the complainant alleged misbehaviour on the part of the officials attached to the airlines.  The opposite party never informed the complainant regarding the delay.  So the complainant would attribute deficiency of service.  Hence the complaint.

3.  The opposite party had filed a version by admitting the delay caused but justified it stating engineering requirements as the reason.  They further alleged that the complainant never furnished his personal mobile number instead a landline number was furnished and nobody had picked the phone when the opposite party had attempted to communicate the delay caused.  The allegations of misbehaviour of the employees of the opposite party are denied.  There was no deficiency of service and hence sought for dismissal of the complaint.

4.  The complainant and the opposite party filed proof affidavits.  Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant.

5.  The District Commission came to a conclusion that the version of the complainant was more probable and hence the complaint was allowed by awarding Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.

6.  The appellant would assail the order of the District Commission on the reason that the DGCA rules never contemplate alternative accommodation if the delay is up to 5 hours.  The appellant placed reliance upon the ruling of the Apex Court reported in 2011(7) SCC 463 in “Inter Globe Aviation Ltd Vs N. Satchidanand” to support their stand.  According to the appellant there is failure on the part of the District Commission in appreciating the legal position as per the DGCA rules as settled by the Apex Court.

7.  Though notice was served on the complainant he remained absent.  The records from the District Commission were called for.

8.  Heard the counsel for the appellant.  Perused the order and the records received from the District Commission.

9.  There is no dispute regarding the delay caused in the schedule.  Delay of 5 hours was caused which according to the appellant was on account of engineering reasons.  As far as the flights are concerned the basic responsibility is the safety of the passengers.  When engineering requirements arise delay is inevitable.  There is specific pleadings in the version filed by the opposite party regarding their inability to inform the complainant about the delay as the complainant had furnished a landline number which never responded to the calls.  The landline number furnished by the complainant was also incorporated in the version filed by the opposite party.  Since the complainant had never furnished a mobile number so as to enable the opposite party to communicate the delay of the scheduled flight it was impossible to inform the delay in advance and hence the opposite party cannot be held liable.

10.  The   Apex Court, in the ruling reported in 2011(7) SCC 463 in "Inter Globe Aviation Ltd Vs N. Satchidanand” had elaborately considered the facilities to be provided to the passengers in case of delay in the scheduled departure of fight.  If the delay is up to five hours it is not necessary to provide alternative accommodation to the passengers.  Here the delay is within five hours and hence the alleged failure to provide free accommodation to the complainant can never be construed as deficiency of service.  It could be seen that the District Commission had casually approached the matter without looking into the DGCA rules and reached a conclusion that there was deficiency of service on the part of the appellant.

11.  On a consideration of the settled legal position by the Apex Court it can be concluded that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant.  The order passed by the District Commission is found unsustainable.  So the appeal is allowed. 

In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order passed by the District Commission is set aside.  The complaint shall stand dismissed.  Parties shall bear their respective costs.

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                   AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                                          BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER