DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this this 10^th  day of May 2023      .                                                                                             

                           Filed on:

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                              Member               

C.C. NO 393/2015

COMPLAINANT

T.G.N. Kumar, 33/3004, Vennala P.O., Ernakulam, Kochi-682 028

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Managing Director, Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL) Nedumbassery-683 585.
2. The Chairman (Chief Minister of Kerala). Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL), Secretariat Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
3. The Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
4. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Cochin International Airport Ltd, Nedumbassery-683 111.
5. The Director General Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Ministry of Home Affairs, CGO Complex, New Delhi - 110 003
6. The Chairman, Airport Authority of India,
7. Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, SJ Airport, New Delhi-110 003.

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

1)      A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

          The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant is a frequent flyer and being a native of Cochin the complainant is using CIAL quite often. The complaint is filed regarding the deficiency of service at Cochin International Airport, Ltd., (hereinafter CIAL) and also the insufficiency of CISF personnel at CIAL. The complainant made representations before the opposite parties who are responsible for the proper upkeep and security of CIAL. There is no response to the representations made by the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party as the Chairman of CIAL submits the Annual Report to the General Body. In the Annual Report 2013-2014, the 2^nd opposite party stated that there is an increase of 13.67% in aircraft movement. There is a total of 47216 aircraft movement both in the international sector and domestic sector. As regards passenger movements there is a steep rise of 9.93% from the previous year and a total of 5386463 passengers travelled through CIAL international sector and domestic sector. There was a 17.91% growth in revenue and the CIAL collected a total revenue of 361.39 crores during 2013-14 and the company earned a profit of Rs. 157.46 crores. These are all figures reported by the 2^nd opposite party at the Annual General Body. Thus, CIAL is a profit-making airport and has to meet the requirement of the passengers including the complainant and also the general public.  The Calicut International Airport at the time of the complaint was partially closed for repairs and flights were diverted to CIAL, Nedumbassery. As a result, there was heavy rush at CIAL and the CISF personnel at CIAL are overburdened with work resulting in their misbehaviour with passengers. Also, the safety of the airport is also at risk. On 11.06.2015 the Mathrubhoomi daily carried the news that there are serious security laps in CIAL and that passengers came out of the airport without going through the security check. The same newspaper also carried the news that there was a clash at Calicut International Airport resulting in the death of one CISF personnel. The said incidents are pending investigation. Pointing out the deficiency a complainant made a representation dated 18.05.2015 before the 5th opposite party. The salary of CISF personnel working in Airports is paid from Passenger Service Fees' collected from passengers (through various Airlines). Order No: AV.13024/047/2003-SS of Ministry of Civil Aviation Govt of India. The passengers are entitled to a decent service from CISF personnel. Calicut International Airport and Goa Airport are partially closed and the air traffic is diverted to CIAL. There is a resultant unmanageable rush at CIAL. It was necessary to redeploy CISF personnel working in Calicut Airport and Goa Airport to CIAL to make the situation. This is not done. Due to overwork and insufficient number, the CISF personnel always misbehave with passengers: There is no aero bridge at the domestic terminal CIAL. There is no rain shelter for passengers reaching the domestic terminal and it will become extremely difficult once the monsoon sets in. There is an insufficiency of toilets to meet the need of passenger traffic. At present, there is only one entrance each at Domestic and International Terminals. As per the present rush of passengers, there must be at least three entrances each at Domestic and International Terminals. The Managing Director for CIAL the 1st opposite party herein is the Principal Secretary Govt. of Kerala and he is having other preoccupations. CIAL needs a full-time Managing Director considering the expansions going on. The present M D is visiting CIAL only once in a while. The complainant got completely wet on a rainy day at the departure at CIAL because there is no rain shelter and had to board the flight with wet clothes after reaching New Delhi was bedridden for 3 days due to fever and body pain resulting from being wet on board due to the deficiency at CIAL. The complainant suffered injury and loss due to the deficiency at CIAL. The complainant couldn't catch connecting flights on several occasions due to the delay in departure of flights from CIAL which is only because of the delay in security check owing to the deficiency in the no: of personnel from CISF. The salary of CISF at CIAL is paid from the amount collected from the complainant also. Due to the deficiency of service at CIAL, the complainant suffered the loss of several lakhs of rupees but for the purpose of this case, he is claiming only rupees 1 lakh. Pointing out the deficiencies the complainant made a petition to the opposite parties on 27.05.2015, but no action has been taken to cure the deficiencies and hence this complaint. The complainant had approached this Commission seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards deficiencies and the cost of the proceedings.

 2). Notices

          Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notice and filed their versions.

3). Version of the 1^st opposite party

The complaint filed by the complainant is not in accordance with the requirements of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, and has been filed with malevolent intentions. The complaint is totally vague and the details of his journey, date, destination, name of the airline, etc are not mentioned therefore the complaint lacks bonafides. The complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive and the complainant has not made out a prima facie case and the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant has not furnished the details of his air ticket or destination or the date of travel or the name of the airline. The complainant has filed this complaint without making the airline by which he availed the travel facility, a party to the proceedings, which itself shows that the complaint is vexatious in nature and has been filed purely on an experimental basis. Cochin International Airport Ltd is a company registered under the Companies Act, of 1956 with the object of constructing commissioning, operating, managing, and maintaining an airport of international standards. CIAL applied and obtained the necessary license in accordance with the Aircraft Act and Rules to establish an aerodrome -airport at Nedumbasserry for use as a place of arrival and departure for all passengers of airlines for operation by Aircraft. CIAL is the airport operator and provides infrastructure for the operation of the Airport. The airport is operated on the license issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation under Rule 78 of the Aircraft Rules and as per the guidelines and Regulations issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation under the Government of India from time to time. The airport is functioning in compliance with all statutory provisions and there is no violation of any provision. In the Airport, there are many agencies including statutory agencies like the immigration, customs, and CISF who are performing statutory functions of the state, and non-statutory agencies like the airlines, ground handling agencies, etc. perform their own respective functions for the operation of the Aircraft. An airport is a place where inter-organizational activities take place. The airport operator does not have direct control over the activities of the statutory agencies as they deliver statutory functions of the state. These agencies are governed by the Rules and Regulations of the Central Government. The personnel of these departments/ organizations are not under the control of the airport operator and the airport operator does not have any say in the administrative/operational matter of these agencies.  The complainant has filed a complaint contending that he is a consumer, but as explained above it is not stated when and from whom he availed the service and whether there is any deficiency in service and in what manner, etc. Further, according to him, he came to the airport on a rainy day and while he was taken to the aircraft by the concerned airlines, due to the rain he was wet and here also he has not mentioned the name of the airlines. In the present petition, no single event with all particulars regarding, the date of service, name of service provider, invoice details, nature of service, deficiency of service, the complaint filed for deficiency correction, etc., have not been evident in the complaint. Moreover, The complainant is not a direct consumer of the airport as he does not pay any consideration directly to the airport for any particular service. The complainant has raised numerous unnecessary allegations against the MD of this respondent even though there is no direct relation between the MD of the 1^st opposite party and the complainant Further, he has not described the nature of deficiency of service on the part of the MD. The complainant who is the direct consumer of the Airline has not indicated any 25 airlines nor has he made them the opposite parties in the case. The complainant has utilized this commission for he has not specified any specific deficiency on the part the opposite party. The complainant has stated that he is a frequent flier from CIAL, however, he has not substantiated his claim by producing any documents to evidence the same. The complainant has not indicated the dates of the Journey, the destinations to which he has travelled, the airlines he has used, the copies of the tickets/ boarding pass issued for the travel, etc., which are necessary to prove his claim. The complainant has also not disclosed the nature of his profession which warrants frequent travel by air from Cochin. Hence all his claims are to mislead the Honourable Forum and the case is to be dismissed ad limine. The complainant has stated in para 2 that this complaint is regarding deficiency of service at CIAL and also regarding the insufficiency of CISF Person at CIAL. The complainant has not specified the deficiency of service provided by CIAL. He has also not stated the Consumer/Service provider relationship that exists between him and CIAL. Any deficiency in service or matters relating to CISF are to be taken up with the concerned organization especially since this statutory organization, including CISF - Airport Security Group does not come within the purview of CIAL and is not under any administrative control of CIAL.  The averments in para 3 that there is no response to the representation made by the complaint is to mislead this commission as the complaint letter to CIAL is dated 27.05.2015 and a case has been filed before this commission on 18.06.2015 which shows that sufficient time has not been provided for a proper response. The averments in paragraph 4 that there was a serious security lapse in CIAL and passengers came out of the airport without a security check is baseless and hence denied. The other averments made in para 4 are no relation to CIAL and hence denied.  The averments in para 6 that the passenger traffic growth due to the partial closure of Calicut Airport and as a result, additional work leading to misbehaviour by CISF personnel is without any basis and hence denied. The averments that there is insufficiency of infrastructure are also baseless and hence denied. The operational requirements of the airport have been inspected by the Director of General of Civil Aviation and other competent agencies and a license has been issued for the operation of the airport. The averments that there is no aerobridge at the domestic terminal of CIAL is to mislead this commission. It is submitted that even in modernized airports like Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, etc there are remote aircraft parking bays that do not have aerobridge facilities and, in such events, passengers are transported to and from the aircraft through airport buses. Similar practice is also followed in other international airports all over the world and this is an accepted and universal practice, in the Civil Aviation Arena. Hence the absence of an aerobridge cannot be treated as a deficiency in service. With regard to the averments regarding the number of entrances within the airport, their number and Rules, etc are controlled and regulated by Regulations and Rules issued by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security and other competent Civil aviation authority of the country, since the airport is a high-risk security zone. The Managing Director is not functioning full-time is in no way related to the grievance of the complainant and is an unnecessary allegation. Such an allegation is unwarranted and the complainant has barged on into unsolicited areas. The averments are totally baseless and hence denied. The complaint is not supported by factual data and dates of his sickness and the complainant has not submitted any supporting documents in support of his claims. The complaints are directed to the airline in which the complainant travelled as the customer service provider relationship exists only between the passenger and the airline since the consideration has been paid by the complainant to the airline directly. The complainant has not mentioned the airline nor made the respective airline a party to this complaint. Hence the complaint is prima facie liable to be rejected for non-rejoinder of necessary parties. The complainant does not have a consumer relationship with the 1^st opposite party. There is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party. There is no service provided directly by the 1^st  opposite party to the complainant. Even the complaint of the complainant regarding his sickness and consequential damages does the 1^st opposite party. The deficiency of service is not a party. The complainant does not have any relationship with the 1^st  opposite party, consumer relationship is only with the airline he has travelled. The deficiency of service could only be attributed solely, wholly, and directly to the airline in which the complainant travelled, and as the complainant has neither indicated the airline nor did he include the service provider, airline, who is a necessary party (and service provider) in this case, the entire petition is liable to be dismissed for non-rejoinder of necessary party. The compensation claim of the complainant is frivolous, and baseless and will not stand against the 1^st opposite party.

4). Version of the 2^nd and   3 ^3rd   opposite parties

The Complainant has not submitted any document to prove that he is a frequent flyer. Frequent flyer relationship exists between the passenger and airline (and not with an airport) that offers them the privileges. The above complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is not maintainable for mis joinder of parties. The 2^nd opposite party has no legal authority to represent CIAL. The CIAL is represented by its managing director. The 2 opposite party is only the Ex-Officio chairman of the CIAL. The then Chief Minister is the Ex-Officio Chairman of the CIAL from time to time. There is no consumer dispute between the complainant and the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. They have no personnel liability. Hence the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are unnecessary parties in the party array. The impugned action if any taken by the CISF cannot be treated as services as defined in section 2(1)(0) of the consumer protection act and therefore, the present dispute is outside the purview of the consumer protection act. The CISF is looking the security affairs of the airport and they are appointed by the Central Government Ministry of Home affairs. The action taken by the CISF is part of the statutory functioning and it is a part of legal duty and not a service. The statutory functioning by a statutory force cannot be questioned before the commission and it can only by Article 226 of Constitution.

There is no deficiency in service by CIAL. Regarding insufficiency of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel, the exact number of CISF personnel as proposed by Bureau of Civil Aviation Security based on their security survey was not posted. CISF is to be appointed by the Central Government Ministry of Home affairs." Quarters and requested for personnel. CIAL took up the matter with CISF Head the required number has not been posted. This matter is beyond the control of CIAL and due to reasons attributable to CIAL. The airport has been affected due to the shortage of CISF. However, no security function at the airport has affected the shortage of personnel, as the CISF unit has made efforts to ensure that all functions have been performed as required.  The statement that the growing Passenger number resulted in misbehavior in CISF personnel is not correct. Complaints of this nature have not been lodged with CIAL. The reported lapse at the airport as stated was a mistake on the part of the ground handling agency and not the Central Industrial Security Force. Such a mistake was due to a communication error, solely attributable to the ground security threat of the security angle in this case handling agency and was rectified within minutes. While this is a lapse, there were no incidents involving CISF at Calicut airport does not have a relation with CIAL. The passenger service fee collected is to meet the security expenditures at the airport. Redeployment of CISF personnel from Calicut airport to Cochin, as their flights were diverted to Cochin does not come under the purview of CIAL. Deployment of the Central Industrial Security Force is the internal procedure of CISF. Misbehaviour by CISF due to overwork has not been reported to or brought to the notice of CIAL. There are no aerobridges at the domestic terminal of CIAL plan layout and the infrastructure of the domestic terminal has been built without considering aerobridges. Aerobridge is not a mandatory requirement. Moreover, even the other metro airports including Delhi there are airports without aerobridges. In all airports, there are remote bays which means, people have to go to these bays (aircraft parking areas) by coaches and board the aircraft. Even in International airports remote bays are operational. Moreover, flights like ATR and Q 400, which operate in the domestic sector, cannot use aerobridges. At the exit of the security hold area of the terminal from where passengers get inside the bus, to go to the aircraft and in the arrival area, where the passengers arrive at the terminal for the aircraft, CIAL has provided permanent bus shelter to protect all passengers from the rain. A sufficient number of toilets are inside the terminal whether in the general/check-in area or in the security hold area or the arrival area. There are separate toilet blocks for men and women at each of these locations. There are two gates on the departure sides of both the international and domestic terminals at the time of the complaint. The number of gates to be operated depends upon the security agency also. The Managing Director of CIAL at the time of complaint was also the additional Chief Secretary / Principal Secretary, Water Resources, Government of Kerala. The statement that Managing Director was visiting CIAL only once in a while is not correct. He ably and efficiently discharged all his responsibilities as the Managing Director of Cochin International Airport Limited and was available at CIAL, whenever his responsibilities required his presence. He is the founder and Managing Director of CIAL, who conceived the project and implemented the project which many thoughts were "impossible". With his able administrative skills and efficient project management acumen he built India's 1^st PPP airport. During the second time, he ensured that CIAL was in profits and declared dividends to shareholders. He also modernized the international terminals. During his 3^rd stint, he builds T3 India's largest terminal complex, in the most cost-effective manner while incorporating state-of-the-art facilities, which evidence his administrative and operational skills, efficiency, and capabilities. He further made CIAL, the world's 1^st airport fully operating on solar energy. He ensured transparency in all activities especially project implementation and tender-related information were published in CIAL's website. Now he is the full-time Managing Director of CIAL. The complainant’s letter dated 27.05.2015 has not been received in CIAL. The complaint does not fall within the scope of the "Consumer" Act, since there is no consumer/supplier relation between CIAL and the complainant. The complainant has paid his airfare to the airline and he is the customer of the airline and not of the airport, to whom no consideration has been paid by him. In the complaint, he has not mentioned the specific reason for which he claims compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-

5). Version of the 4^th  and   5 ^th   opposite parties

The statements contained in the complaint are neither true nor sufficient to allow any relief. The nature of the complaint is like Public Interest litigation and such a complaint will not lie before this commission. CISF is an Armed Force of the Union, entrusted with the vital task of the national importance of providing protection and security to the Govt.'s installations, Airports. Public Undertakings etc. of the Country. After the hijacking of IC 814 to Kandhar in 1999, the security of Indian airports was augmented and the CISF was asked to replace the state police forces to professionalize aviation security functions to bring synergy and uniform standards of systemic and human performance across this complex security matrix. The CISF was inducted at CIAL on 26.05.2000. The manpower requirement of CISF is sanctioned by Ministry of Home Affairs on the basis of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security's (8CAS) approval. The existing CISF strength of Cochin Airport is 494 based on a resurvey conducted during the year 2007. Generally, there is a deficiency of manpower that is prevailing in all the units of airports wherever CISF is deployed. The passenger movement at CIAL increased from 25.61.070 in the year 2007 to 61.04.559 (138%) in 2014. The Calicut airport is also partially closed for repairs and flights are diverted to Cochin airport, Nedumbassery. As a result of the above approximately 20% of passengers is expected for about eighteen months through Cochin Airport. All out efforts have been made to enhance the manpower to overcome the difficulty in handling the heavy rush of passengers at Cochin Airport due to the increase in the number of flights as well as due to the partial diversion of flights from Calicut Airport. The matter with regard to making good the deficiency was taken up with CISF higher formations by the Sr. Commandant, CISF ASG Cochin, and CIAL Management and requested for deployment of 52 personnel on internal security pattern (1.S. Duty) to cope with the situation as augmentation of additional strength requires approval from Ministry of Home Affairs. In response, CISF Airport Sector Head Quarters. letter No.ID-12013/12/Cochin/2000/APC/1928 dated 20 February 2015 intimated that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is not in favour of I.S. Duty deployment for a longer period and intimated for finalization of resurveyed strength in a time-bound manner so as to deploy additional manpower after sanction of MHA. A joint re-survey for the augmentation of manpower was carried out in April 2015 by representatives of CISF, CIAL, and BCAS. They proposed a strength of 917 personnel (i.e., 494 + 423 additional manpower) after the due procedure The resurvey report has been submitted to the Ministry of Civil Aviation for approval vide Addi. Director General (Airport Sector. CISF New Delhi letter No. ID- 12013/12/Cochin)/2000/APC-5980 sanction is awaited. dated 01 July 2015. It is true that Calicut Airport is partially closed for repairs and tights are diverted to Cochin Airport, Nedumbassery. As a result of the above approximately 20% is expected for about eighteen months through Cochin Airport. All out efforts have been made to enhance the manpower to overcome the difficulty in handling the heavy rush of passengers at Cochin Airport due to increasing in the number of flights as well as due to the partial diversion of flights from Calicut Airport. The contention of the petitioner that an increased workload is resulting in misbehavior by CISF personnel with the passengers is unsubstantiated and false. He should have cited any specific instance. So that specific comments on the same could be offered by these opposite parties. The CISF was inducted at CIAL on 26/05/2000. The manpower requirement of CISF is sanctioned by the Ministry of Home Affairs on the basis of the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security's (BCAS) approval. The existing CISF strength of Cochin Airport is 494 based on a resurvey conducted during the year 2007. Matter with regard to making good the deficiency was taken up with CISF higher formations by CIAL as well as by Sr.Commandant, CISE ASG Cochin, and it was also requested for deployment of 52 personnel on Internal Security pattern (1.5 Duty), in turn. CISF Airport Sector letter dated 20 February 2015 Intimated that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is not in favor of 1.5 Duty deployment for a longer period and intimated for finalization of resurveyed strength in a time-bound manner so as to deploy additional manpower after sanction of MHA. A joint resurvey for the augmentation of manpower was carried out on April 2015 by representatives of CISF. CIAL and BCAS and proposed strength of 917 personnel (i.e. 494 +423 additional manpower) after the due procedure. The resurvey report has been submitted to the Ministry of Civil Aviation for approval. The Airport Sector HQrs, CISF New Delhi has requested the Ministry of Civil Aviation for expeditious action for further sanction by MHA. The salary of CISF personnel is paid from the consolidated fund of India and in turn recovered from the concerned client organization. It is the Passenger Service Fee (a security component) in the case of deployment of CISF in Airports. The CISF was inducted at CIAL on 26/05/2000. The manpower requirement of CISF is sanctioned by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on the basis of the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security's (BCAS) approval. The existing CISF strength of Cochin Airport is 494 based on a resurvey conducted during the year 2007. It is true that the pax movement at CIAL has increased from 25,61,070 in the year 2007 to 61.04.559 (138%). To overcome the difficulty in handling the heavy rush of passengers at Cochin Airport as well as due to the partial diversion of flights from Calicut Airport, the matter for augmentation of manpower at Cochin Airport was taken up with CISF higher formations by CIAL as well as Sr. Commandant, CISF ASG Cochin and it were also requested for deployment of 52 personnel on internal security pattern (1.5. Duty). In turn. CISF Airport Sector letter dated 20th February 2015 intimated that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is not in favour of I.S Duty deployment for a longer period and intimated for finalization of resurveyed strength in a time-bound manner so as to deploy additional manpower after sanction of MHA. A joint resurvey for the augmentation of manpower was carried out by representatives of CISF, CIAL, and BCAS in April 2015. They proposed a strength of 917 personnel (i.e., 494 423 additional manpower) after the due procedure. The resurvey report has been submitted to the Ministry of Civil Aviation for approval. The Airport Sector HQrs. CISF New Delhi has requested the Ministry of Civil Aviation for expeditious action for further sanction by MHA. Approval and sanction is awaited in this regard. The statement that due to overwork and insufficient number, the CISF personnel always misbehave with passengers is an utter falsehood and denied by the opposite parties. The above allegation is bald and without any basis as the complainant has not mentioned even a single specific instance regarding the above allegation.

6). Version of the 6^th  opposite party

Cochin International Airport Ltd. is a privately run Airport, wherein the Airports Authority of India a Govt. of India PSU provide only the CNS and ATM Services. The Airports Authority of India is not involved in running any other day-to-day operations including Passenger handling of the Airport. For reasons stated above the contention of the Complainant does not hold good against Airports Authority of India, who has been wrongly impleaded as a Opposite Party in the instant complaint.

7). Evidence

The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 3 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-3. The complainant was examined as PWI.

Exbt.A-1: A true copy of the representation dated 18.05.2015

Exbt.A-2: True copy of the representation dated 27.05.2015.

Exbt.A-3: Boarding pass issued at CIAL- The complainant boarded Air India Flight A1466 Kochi- Delhi on 11/06/2015.

DOCUMENT FILED BY OPPOSITE PARTIES 4 AND 5

Exbt.B-1: 20/02/2015: Copy of letter sent by Additional Director General (Airport Sector), CISF to the Airport Director, CIAL. Kochi.

Exbt.B-2: 01/07/2015: Copy of letter sent by Additional Director General (Airport Sector), CISF to Joint Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi.

8) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:

i)       Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii)      Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the   side of the opposite party to the complainant?

iii)     If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of    the opposite party?

iv)     Costs of the proceedings if any?

9)      The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:

1. The crux of the complaint made by the complainant against the opposite parties can be summarised under two heads. The lack of passenger amenities by the 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd Opposite Parties and the lack of adequate security infrastructure provided by the CISF, the 4^th and 5^th Opposite Parties herein.

2. The complainant has brought to the notice of this Commission Order No: AV.13024/047/2003-SS of Ministry of Civil Aviation Govt of India dated 09^th May 2006 which shows the collection of Passenger Service Fees (PSF) at Greenfield/Private airports- regarding. Also, information obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005 in a reply dated 23.08.2013 marked as Exhibit A-4 by the 6^th opposite party authority shows the PSF as Rs.207/-. Out of this amount Rs.130/- is the security component that is utilized towards meeting the security-related expenses including salary to the CISF personnel. The airport operator would retain the remaining amount after deducting the security component towards passenger facilitation. Furthermore, the above-mentioned RTI reply provides that no amount goes to any airline out of PSF. The complainant thus alleges deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties for the inconveniences suffered by the complainant for the consideration he had paid for the airline ticket which includes the PSF.

3. The preliminary question to consider is whether the complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainant boarded Air India Flight A1466 Kochi- Delhi on 11/06/2015. The complainant produced a boarding pass issued by the CIAL. (Exhibits A-3) to show that he is a user of the airport run by the 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party has contested the maintainability of the complaint inter alia on other grounds that the 1^st Opposite Party is discharging a statutory function by being an airport operator under the license issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation under Rule 78 of the Aircraft Rules issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation under the Government of India from time to time.  Furthermore, the 1^st Opposite Party in its statement says that;

5. In the Airport, there are many agencies including statutory agencies like the immigration, customs, CISF who are performing statutory functions of the state, and non-statutory agencies like the airlines, ground handling agencies, etc. performing their own respective functions for the operation of the Aircraft. The airport is a place where inter-organizational activities take place. The airport operator does not have direct control over the activities of the statutory agencies as they deliver statutory functions of the state. These agencies are governed by the Rules and Regulations of the Central Government. The personnel of these departments/ organizations are not under the control of the airport operator and the airport operator does not have any say in the administrative/operational matter of these agencies.

4.  The 1st Opposite Party has also contested that there is no customer-service provider relationship between the 1^st Opposite party and the complainant since the consideration has been paid by the complainant to the airline directly. Furthermore, the 1^st Opposite Party has contested that the complainant has deliberately not made the airlines a party in this complaint.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Urban Planning and Development Authority and Ors. v. Vidya Chetal and Ors. AIR 2019 SC 4357 has expressed its concerns regarding the correctness of the judgment rendered in the case of HUDA vs. Sunita, (2005) 2 SCC 479 wherein it was held that the   National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission (hereinafter referred to as “NCDRC”) had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality behind the demand of “composition fee” and “extension fee” made by   HUDA,  as the same being statutory obligation, does not qualify as “deficiency in service”. 

“The Supreme Court observed that it was a clearly established principle that certain statutory dues, such as fees, can arise out of a specific relation. Such statutory dues might be charged as a quid pro quo for a privilege conferred or for a service rendered by the authority. There were exactions which were for the common burden, like taxes, there were dues for a specific purpose, like cess, and there were dues in lieu of a specific service rendered. Therefore, it was clear from the above discussion that not all statutory dues/ exactions were amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, rather only those exactions which were exacted for a service rendered would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The determination of the dispute concerning the validity of the imposition of a statutory due arising out of a deficiency in service could be undertaken by the consumer fora as per the provisions of the Act. The decision of this Court in the case of Sunita, wherein it was held that NCDRC had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the legitimacy of the statutory dues, was rendered without considering any of the previous judgments of this Court and the objects of the Act. Consequently, the law laid down in the said case did not hold good before the eyes of law, and was thereby overruled”.[1]

6. In The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer and Anr Vs. Kesar Lal  Civil Appeal No 2014 of 2020 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the beneficiary under a statutory scheme is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The relevant paragraphs of the Judgment are reproduced below;

7. In the light of the above decisions, it is clear that the complainant herein can be considered a consumer if he is a beneficiary of the service rendered by the 1^st Opposite Party since no amount of the PSF component towards passenger facilitation goes to the airlines as per EXHIBIT P-4 and it solely goes to the 1^st Opposite Party airport.  Furthermore, passenger facilitation as a service is not rendered free of charge as evident from Exhibit P-4 and is the discharge of non-sovereign functions which are not rendered free of charge, and hence would come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and a customer-service provider relationship between the 1^st Opposite party and the complainant is established.
8. The services rendered by the 4^th and 5^th Opposite Parties CISF even though are rendered not free of charge the same will not come under the definition of a consumer service provider relationship. The 4^th and 5^th Opposite parties have made it clear the salary of the CISF personnel is from the Consolidated Fund of India and in turn recovered from the client organization as the security component of the PSF as the CISF is a compensatory cost force which is governed under the Central Industrial Security Force Act,1968 discharging a the sovereign function of the state in Performance of the statutory duty.  Hence there can be no consumer relation between the complainant and the 4^th and 5^th Opposite parties in discharge of their sovereign function and the twin test mentioned in The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer and Anr Vs. Kesar Lal  Civil Appeal No 2014 of 2020 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is not here.

9. The complainant has failed to establish that he is a frequent flyer of the CIAL operated by the 1^st Opposite Party other than the averments made in the compliant. The complainant has also failed to provide evidence to substantiate his claims of compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- towards the deficiency of service of the opposite parties. The complainant has also failed to show the deficiency of service made by the 2^nd, 3^rd, and the 6^th Opposite Parties.

10. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the 1st Opposite Party in not providing adequate rain cover while boarding the aircraft. The complainant was cross-examined by the 1st Opposite Party and the complainant deposed that no rain cover was provided on the ladder and he was also not allowed to use an umbrella due to ‘security reasons’ which could be found out from ‘visuals’. The fact whether there was rain and whether the passengers were provided with a rain canopy on the step ladder could be found out from the CCTV footage and is not disproved by the 1st Opposite Party.  Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts in issue as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968 (1968 AIR 1413, 1968 SCR (3) 862). The 1st Opposite Party being in possession of all relevant weather data and CCTV visuals of the airport had failed to provide such data/information to disprove the claim of the complainant regarding the rain and the non-provision of a step ladder without rain canopy for boarding the aircraft. Furthermore, no evidence is adduced by the 1st Opposite Party to show that it is the duty of the airlines concerned to provide for the ladder to board/de-board the aircraft and that the 1st Opposite Party is excluded from providing it under PSF which the 1st Opposite Party has collected from the complainant as evidenced from EXHIBIT P4.  So we are of the opinion that only a negative inference can be drawn against the 1st Opposite Party in not providing a ladder with rain cover/canopy thus resulting in the 1st Opposite Party complainant in getting drenched in rain causing him physical discomfort, mental pain and agony.  Hence the 1st Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant regarding the issue of not providing a step ladder without canopy while boarding the aircraft constitutes deficiency in service. The claim for compensation by the Complainant thus would stand against the 1st Opposite party for the deficiency in service in not providing rain cover when boarding the aircraft.
11. It is generally seen that even huge profit-making entities are indifferent in their attitude towards consumers in the protection of their rights. We cannot be mute spectators when consumers approach commissions like these for the redressal of their grievances which cannot be raised elsewhere. 
12. We find that issues No (I), (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for deficiency in service on the part of the 1st Opposite Party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered physical discomfort, mental agony etc. due to the acts/omission on the part of the 1st Opposite Party.

         In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the 1^st opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:

1. The opposite party shall pay the complainant Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) as compensation for the physical discomfort, mental agony etc. caused to the complainant due to the acts/omission on the part of the 1st Opposite Party.
2. The 1^st opposite party shall also pay the complainant Rs.8,000/- (Eight thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.

The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the 1^st Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this 10^th day of May,  2023.

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                             D.B.Binu, President

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   V.Ramachandran, Member

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

                                                                      Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar