Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Judicial Member:

(1)          The complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Indian Airlines, the Opposite Party. 

(2)          According to Complainant he was traveling from Goa to Mumbai by Flight No.061 IC 164 by paying requisite charges.  He was occupying Seat No.28C as per boarding pass.  When the flight was landing in the tarmac  Mumbai Airport, all of a sudden a gas cylinder weighing about 8 to 9 kgs. fell on the Complainant’s head with force and came down to the Complainant’s shoulder causing instant bleeding injury on his head and he suffered severe pain from the head as well as from the shoulder and spine.  The sudden impact had caused vomiting and bleeding.  First aid was given, but, it was of no use.  The Opposite Parties’ staff brought wheel chair and asked to wait for Doctor to attend for about two hours.  After examination, Doctor gave instruction to Airport staff that Complainant needed to be thoroughly checked in the hospital.  However, no immediate action was taken.  He was put in taxi and told to go to Guru Nanak Hospital and Research Centre.  The hospital authority refused to take him saying that he has not been issued any letter by Opposite Party for rendering and giving treatment.  He was treated shabbily by the hospital staff.  Due to non-cooperation of Guru Nanak Hospital and Research Centre Doctors, his friends and relatives asked for discharge and they took him in ambulance and admitted in Divine Brain – Spine Hospital and Trauma Centre, Thane.  Doctor examined him and found constusion over left fronto parietal region 5 * 5 * 2 cm, abrassed constusion of the left shoulder 5 * 5 cm and x-ray showing loss of cervical lordosis meaning spasm of neck muscles.  The Complainant pleaded that he suffered mental torture and agony because of adamant attitude of Opposite Parties.  They were guilty of deficiency in service in not rendering prompt medical aid.  Their designated hospital, Guru Nanak Hospital and Research Centre, submitted false report about health condition of Complainant.  The Complainant pleaded that even today he is suffering from sever head ache and bouts of giddiness and entire spine, due to which he is often considered unfit for driving a vehicle or even take up long distance traveling for his business.   He, therefore sent legal notice on 21.11.2006.  In response, Opposite Party No.3 tendered apology for the incident occurred on 24.09.2006 and refused to pay compensation of `75,00,000/- demanded by the Complainant in his notice.  According to Complainant he is consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he has claimed damages of `50,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and physical hardship and also claimed `15,000/- towards costs.

(3)          Opposite parties filed written statement and contested the complaint.  According to Opposite Party, the incident did take place while Complainant was traveling from Goa to Mumbai.  In their written reply they pleaded that the fire extinguisher located in the overhead locker of the cabin had fallen on the Complainant.  However, Opposite Parties pleaded that they had taken immediate follow-up action.  They have pleaded that under Carriage by Air Act compensation awardable for injury suffered by the passenger which result in temporary disablement is calculated @`750/- per day during which he continued to be disabled or a sum of `1,50,000/- whichever is less.  Their solicitors inquired from the Complainant for how many days he was prevented from attending usual duties or business or occupation, but, there was no response from the Complainant.  They pleaded that the compensation can be awarded only under Carriage by Air Act in terms of Government Notification No.SO 242 dated 20^th January, 1998.  They pleaded that for want of proper information coming from the Complainant it was not possible for the Opposite Parties to determine compensation and on this ground alone the complaint be dismissed with costs.  They pleaded that after the incident the wheel chair was immediately provided to the Complainant and the Doctor from the Airport authorities was called who administered first aid and also advised consultation with an orthopedic surgeon to rule out any head injury.   Duty Manager – Mr.Pramod Chauhan immediately contacted Guru Nanak Hospital and Research Centre authorities and sent the Complainant to said hospital and all the medical expenses were borne by Opposite Parties.  A private taxi was arranged for Complainant and his relatives to the hospital.  Later in the evening duty manager contacted telephonically the hospital authorities and inquired about the well being and treatment given to the Complainant and in the same evening official visited the hospital and met Complainant along with attending doctor. CT Scan and X-ray of the left shoulder and spine were taken and Opposite Parties were informed that Complainant would be kept under observation for 24 hours.  Next day again Official of Opposite Party visited hospital, but Complainant was discharged from hospital later that day.  He and his family were provided with a car at the Opposite Parties’ cost for travel to their residence at Thane.  So, they pleaded that they had taken all precautions to look after the well being and treatment of the injured passenger, the Complainant herein.  They denied that the complainant had to wait for about two hours on the Airport.  They pleaded that there was no deficiency in service.  They, therefore, pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with costs.

(4)          We heard submissions of Advocate Mr.Anand Patwardhan, for the Complainant and Advocate Ms.Sheetal Mhatre for the Opposite Parties.  We have perused the documents and affidavits placed on record.  Following points arise for our consideration:

R E A S O N S:

(5)          It is not in dispute that the Complainant was traveling with his family on the flight operated by Opposite Parties on 24.06.2009 on Goa Mumbai Sector.  It is not in dispute that Complainant sustained injuries on his head and on his shoulder and suffered constusion over left fronto parietal region 5 * 5 * 2 cm, abrassed constusion of the left shoulder 5 * 5 cm and x-ray showing loss of cervical lordosis meaning spasm of neck muscles.  It is seen from the written statement and affidavits filed by Opposite Parties that Opposite Parties had taken reasonable amount of care of this passenger after they noticed that the Complainant had sustained injuries because of falling of cylinder on his head while he had sat in the seat of aircraft.  The treatment was given to the Complainant in Guru Nanak Hospital & Research Centre where CT Scan was done, blood test was carried out, blood sugar and union sugar was also done and on the same day he was discharged from Guru Nanak Hospital and Research Centre and all the treatment given to the Complainant in Guru Nanak Hospital & Research Centre was done at the expenses of Opposite Parties.  After taking discharge from Guru Nanak Hospital & Research Centre, the Complainant went to Divine Brain – Spine Hospital and Trauma Centre at Thane and he was required to pay bill of `2,100/- for further treatment taken in the said hospital. 

(6)          Letter exchanged between the parties make it very clear that Complainant was given necessary help and medical treatment by Indian Airlines, the Opposite Party herein.  The only deficient service on the part of Opposite Party Airlines is, not properly keeping gas cylinder in duly fixed in luggage portion of the aircraft above seat no.28C occupied by the Complainant herein.  Since that gas cylinder was not properly secured inside, all of a sudden it fell down on the Complainant’s head from the height of 4/5 ft. and Complainant sustained injury.  So, deficiency in service on the part of Indian Airlines is to this extent only and nothing more.  It is true that it is the duty of every airline to take proper precaution in this behalf and no such heavy things or articles should fall from the luggage portion on the head of any passenger.  Whatever is kept in the luggage portion of the aircraft inside the aircraft must be kept secured and it is the duty of the airline to take due and proper care in this behalf to secure such articles, so that it should not fall on the head or body of any passenger travelling in such aircraft.  The Indian airline failed in its duty in properly securing the gas cylinder in the cabinet made for luggage of the passengers.  This was only deficiency in service on the part of Indian Airlines.  But, after they found that the passenger suffered injuries in the accident Opposite Party had taken all the precaution to send him in private taxi in Guru Nanak Hospital and Research Centre and they had directed medical superintendent to send the bill of the treatment to them and treatment was given in Guru Nanak Hospital and Research Centre free of charge to Mr.Ganesh Joshi.  What is pertinent to note is the fact that immediately after Mr.Joshi got down from the aircraft he was given wheel chair and on wheel chair he was taken out of airport and he was put in taxi and he was immediately taken to Guru Nanak Hospital and Research Centre at the cost of Indian Airlines.  He was treated at Guru Nanak Hospital and Research Centre.  Necessary investigations were made in Guru Nanak Hospital and Research Centre and he was admitted in Guru Nanak Hospital and Research Centre on 24.09.2006 and discharged on 25.09.2006 and diagnosed as falling of heavy object while in flight on 24.09.2006.  The injuries are already mentioned by us in the above portion of the judgement.  These injuries were minor in nature, but, investigation was carried out thoroughly so as to rule out possibility of any major injury not visible from naked eye. 

(7)          In the circumstances, we are of the view that Complainant is entitled to get compensation, but, not as asked for by him.  He has claimed huge compensation of `50 lac, but led no evidence worthy of consideration.  It has simply a fanciful claim with no basis or proof in support thereof.  But, he is entitled to get compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in not taking due and proper care in fastening or keeping the gas cylinder properly secured in the aircraft.  This was only deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties airlines and for this deficiency in service we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get amount of `1,500/- for two days loss of business @`750/- per day income as per  provisions contained in Carriage by Air Act read with Notification No. SO 242 dated 20<sup>th</sup> January, 1998 of Government of India issued in this behalf.  Besides, Complainant is entitled to get `2,100/- the amount spent for taking treatment in Divine Brain – Spine Hospital and Trauma Centre, Thane, as per bill submitted by him at Annexure “C/3” of the complaint compilation.  The Complainant is also entitled to get cost of `1,000/- from the Opposite Parties.  In the circumstances, we pass the following order:

O R  D  E  R

     (i)       Complaint is partly allowed.

    (ii)       Opposite Parties are directed to pay to the Complainant total sum of `3,600/- towards compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties

  (iii)       Opposite Parties are also directed to pay `1,000/- as costs of this proceeding to the Complainant.

  (iv)       Copies of this order be furnished to the parties free of costs.