Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/14/2015

SRI RAJ KAMAL PHUKAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) Ltd, SIROYA CENTER - Opp.Party(s)

PROMEE LOYING

13 Jul 2017

ORDER

FINAL ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DIBRUGARH
 
Complaint Case No. CC/14/2015
 
1. SRI RAJ KAMAL PHUKAN
HOUSE NO. 11, 3rd BYWLANE, AJANTA PATH, SURVEY, P.O.- BELTOLA- 781028, P.S.- GUWAHATI, ASSAM
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) Ltd, SIROYA CENTER
JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) Ltd, SIROYA CENTRE, SAHAR AIRPORT ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA 400099
2. THE MANAGER, JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) Ltd.
THE MANAGER, JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) Ltd. MOHANBARI AIRPORT, MOHANBARI, DIBRUGARH 786012
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Dr. NITENDRA NATH DAS PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Jadav Gogoi MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Dr. Manashi Dutta MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 13 Jul 2017
Final Order / Judgement

         The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a ticket on 14.05.15 through online to perform the journey from Dibrugarh to Guwahati on 20th May,2015 by Jet Airways flight bearing ticket No.5892118338209 and the PNR No.SCBZXC to be departure at 14:05 Hrs and arrival time at Guwahati was  15:05 Hrs on the same day. Accordingly, the complainant arrived Dibrugarh Airport in time on 20th May,2015 and boarding pass was issued bearing No.KK1SWN and Seat number was 20C. The complainant had one piece of luggage to be check in. The complainant boarded in the aircraft along with other passengers in time. But it was told that there was a delay of the flight “for operational issue and plan would fly at 14:35 Hrs.” But actually flight took of around at 15:15Hrs and the passengers were to sit for around two hours  from 13:20Hrs to 15:15 Hrs in the aircraft without any refreshment being offered or any explanation given for the delay. The flight landed at Guwahati at 16:15 Hrs. and before  landing the plane the pilot announced that the luggage will be available in the Belt No-1. Accordingly, the complainant stood near Belt No.1 for nearly 45 minutes but the luggage did not come. When the complainant approached before the authority, airline officials announced that the complainant’s luggage had been left behind in Dibrugarh and also informed that the airlines would make arrangement to have the luggage drop to the house on the next day. As such, the complainant had to leave for home without his luggage. The complainant was unhappy with the service of the OP and had to stand at the airport for long time for which he suffered sufficient damage in terms of loss of physical and mental agony along monetary loss. The above act of the OPs was gross deficiency and negligence and as such OPs are liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the complainant filed this case claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for torture, harassment and agony suffered by him together with Rs.10,000/- for the cost of litigation.

After registering the case notices were issued to  all the OPs to which they have contested the case by filing  written statement stating inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. The OPs admitted that due to operational snag of the flight there was a delay in taking of the aircraft and check-in baggage was delivered to the complainant on the next morning i.e. 21.05.15. The said operational issue arose due to sudden rise of temperature (35 °C) and wind conditions thereto, in and around the vicinity at Dibrugarh Airport on 20.05.15, causing delay in taking off the flight which was beyond the control of the OPs. It is further stated that there are certain laws of aerodynamics which have to be followed in order to safely operate an aircraft. The OP has to look for the safety of the passenger and the aircraft as per standard of rules prescribed by Government. The  runway available at Dibrugarh is not having sufficient length for an aircraft to take off safely in certain circumstances in all weather. The Dibrugarh Airport maintained by the Airport Authority of India does not have full length, all weather runway to allow for a fully laden aircraft, of the type flown by the OPs to safely take off in extreme condition with aircraft weight,+ fuel weight + passenger weight + baggage + cargo weight. In the event of temperature exceeding 35°C and prevailing wind condition. It is not possible for a normal aircraft with all load as mentioned above to take off from the Mohanbari Airport due to its short length. Due to the airport condition of the Dibrugarh all flight including OP operating from Dibrugarh, always have a restricted capacity of passengers to be allowed to be boarded at Dibrugarh Airport than the actual capacity of aircraft, depending on the temperature tread, wind condition and runway length. On that day the flight was Delhi bound via Guwahati and there were 11 passengers travelling to Guwahati, but as there was a sudden rise of temperature to 35°C at Dibrugarh Airport and as per permissible take off limits, rules laid by regulatory bodies and of Physics and Aerodynamics do not allow the aircraft to take off with normal full load and other load of luggage, as such, to get the aircraft to take off some weight has to be reduced. Accordingly, some cargo, baggage and fuel offloading became necessary to be done in order to get the right aircraft- weight- to- available-runway-length ratio. This was done in the interest and for safety of the passengers on board and the aircraft as well during take off from Dibrugarh Airport. As such, it is the established practice that some cargo, baggage and some amount of fuel were reduced in order that the flight may take off and this is done in the interest of the safety of the passenger and aircraft. However, announcement was made at Dibrugarh Airport that the luggage of the passengers travelling to Guwahati would be removed from the Aircraft and delivered to them at Guwahati next morning by alternative mode of transport. As such, it was not the case of only complainant’s luggage being offloaded, but all other the Guwahati bound passenger’s luggages were also offloaded, other passengers understood about the situation and co-operated. The staff of the OP explained the situation to the Guwahati bound passengers regarding inconvenience caused to them and informed that their luggage would be sent by road and would be delivered the very next morning at their respective house and for those the staff of the OP took the address and contact number of the concerned Guwahati bound passengers including the complainant. All the above measures were taken for the safety of the passengers so that flight may safely take off and the reason for delay of the flight was also been informed to the passengers with an announcement at Dibrugarh. It is further stated that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited who supply the fuel for the aircraft is not properly equipped with adequate infrastructure at Dibrugarh Airport for defueling. However, at the request of the OP the said Indian Oil Corporation Limited agreed to help the OP for defueling but it took long time for arrangement of defueling, hence, the delay was caused. Further, the OP stated that the passengers are entitled to refreshment and meal only after delay exceeding two hours from original  schedule time of departure. In the instant case delay beyond original announcement schedule time of departure was only 1 hour 10 minutes i.e. departure time was 14:05 Hrs and the flight took off at 15:15 Hrs. The flight was delayed due to the offloading of  luggage and cargo and defueling, meanwhile they provided with tea at the Dibrugarh Airport. It is therefore, stated that there was no deficiency in service nor negligence in any manner on the part of the OP and the petition filed by the complainant is vexatious, malafide and concocted. The delay and offloading of the luggage were due to operational reason and the luggage were sent by road and thereafter delivered to their respective owners including complainant for which there is no any inconvenience, damage or loss caused to the complainant and there is no any negligence on the part of the OP. As such, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with cost.

In this case complainant gave evidence by swearing affidavit and exhibited as many as 3 (three) documents in support of his case. On the other hand, the OP examined one witness Sri Kaushik Dutta, Station Manager, Jet Airways, Dibrugarh as DW-1 and exhibited as many as 11 (eleven) documents to rebut the case of the complainant.

 

  DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF :

Upon going through the evidence, documents and the argument advanced by both the parties, it is found that the complainant on 20-05-15 boarded as a passenger on Jet Airways flight along with one piece of luggage check in vide luggage ticket No.4705S2862405. it is admitted  fact that piece of luggage check in was not accompanied in the cargo with the aircraft travel by the complainant and as a result of which luggage check in was not delivered to the complainant on 20-05-15 after landing from plane. The complainant also lodged that plane was delayed for more than nearly two hours without any refreshment being offered  nor any explanation given for the delay. The plan had to fly at 14:35 Hrs as per  schedule and arrival of the plane at Guwahati was 15:15 Hrs. whereas, the plane departed at 15:15 Hrs. from Dibrugarh and arrived at Guwahati at 16:15 Hrs.

However, all these facts are admitted by the OPs.

The OPs argued that the flight was delayed and check in luggage were offloaded due to the operational issue arose suddenly. According to him the flight of the OP was delayed due to sudden rise in temperature (35°C) and wind condition thereto in an around the vicinity of Dibrugarh Airport on 20.05.15 caused delay of taking off the plane which was beyond the control of the OP. The Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) issued by the Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India has issued certain rules considering the standard of protection both to strengthen the right of the passenger and to ensure the airlines operate under harmonised condition. In Clause Nos.1.5 of CAR states as follows:-

“Additionally, airlines would also not be liable to pay any compensation in respect of cancellations and delays clearly attributable to Air Traffic Control (ATC), meteorological conditions, security risks, or any other causes that are beyond the control of the airline but which affect their ability to operate flights on schedule. Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft or several aircraft on a particular day, gives rise to a long delay or delays, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, and which could not be avoided even though the airline concerned had taken all reasonable measures to avoid or overcome of the impact of the relevant factor and, therefore, the delays or cancellations.”

 

However, long delay, and overnight delay or cancellation of flight the CAR has provided the facilities for night stay, refreshment for delay for more than two hours etc.

The OP submitted that due to operational issue of the flight there was delay in taking off the aircraft which already been said that there are certain laws of aerodynamics which have to be followed in order to safe operation of an aircraft for which government has provided and prescribed certain standard of rules and procedure for safety of the passengers and aircraft including the rule that an aircraft to have a certain length of runway available for it to take off safely. Certain standard of length has been prescribed for a safe take off if effected by ambient air temperature and wind condition around the airport, particularly on the concrete runway in the midday heat, because with the increasing temperature the density of the air is effected and therefore an aircraft need extra runway length available for it to take up for the thinner air, so that the wind of the aircraft to generate sufficient lift in or for the aircraft to take off. These parameters are also affected by load condition of the aircraft as well as aircraft weight, fuel weight, passenger weight, baggage and cargo weight. Following are the parameter governed to take off every flight which are beyond the control of OP i.e.

 

  1. RTOW = Restricted Takeoff Weight (Which is lesser than normal or maximum takeoff weight of an aircraft) it depends on 05 factors for any airport, i.e.
  2. Runway length & its condition.
  3. Temperature
  4. Obstacle limits
  5. Altitude of the air field
  6. Wind condition.

 

      The OP argued that the Mohanbari Airport of Dibrugarh does not have full length, all weather runway to allow for a fully laden aircraft, of the type flown by the OP to safely take off in extreme conditions. As such, in the rare event of the temperature exceeding 35 °C and prevailing wind condition thereto, it is not possible for a normal aircraft with all loads of aircraft with + fuel weight + passenger weight + baggage and cargo weight of the type used by the OP to take off from the said runway at Mohanbari Airport due to its short length. Owing to the condition of the Dibrugarh Airport, all flight of the OP operating from Dibrugarh always have a restricted capacity of passengers to be allowed to be boarded at Dibrugarh Airport instead of the actual capacity of aircraft depending on the temperature trend, wind condition and runway length. It is done keeping in mind the safety of the aircraft and passengers on board. On 25.05.15 the complainant by which  flight was travelling was Delhi bound flight via Guwahati from Dibrugarh and there were around 11 passengers travelling to Guwahati on that day as per Ext-B. However, on that day there was sudden rise in temperature (35°C) at Dibrugarh Airport and 14:05 Hrs was midday with high temperature. Under such situation as per rules and guidance of the regularity bodies and of physics and aerodynamics, do not allow the aircraft to take off with normal fuel load including other weights and as such, to get the aircraft takeoff some amount of fuel, cargo, luggage are to be reduced. For the aforesaid reason on 20-05-15 some cargo and baggage offloading became necessary and also removing of fuel from the aircraft had to be done to a certain extent in order to get the right aircraft –weight-to- available-runway-length ratio. This was done in the interest of and for safety of all the passengers on board and the aircraft as well during takeoff from Dibrugarh Airport. Ext-C is load sheet dated 20-05-15 of the Dibrugarh- Guwahati flight No.S2-4392.

          As per procedure some cargo, baggage and some amount of fuel was reduced in order that the flight may takeoff. To the above effect, an announcement was made at the Dibrugarh Airport that the luggage of the passengers travelling to Guwahati would be removed from the aircraft and will be delivered to them at their respective addresses at Guwahati next morning. However, it was not only the case of complainant’s luggage be offloaded but all other Guwahati bound passengers were also offloaded. In support of the above the OP submitted Ext.F-1,2,3,4 and 5. For this reason the OP noted down the address and contact number of the concerned Guwahati bound passenger including the complainant. The fuel for the aircraft was also reduced. The unloading of cargo and luggage and reducing of fuel were done for the safety of the passengers and the aircraft so that the flight may safely takeoff.  However, the reason for delay of the flight was that the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. which supplies the fuel for the aircraft is not properly equipped nor do they have the adequate infrastructure at Dibrugarh Airport. As such, for defueling it took long time to arrange for and hence flight was delayed beyond its scheduled time.

         So far the entertainment is concerned, the OP argued that the passengers are entitled for refreshment meal only after delay of exceeding two hours  from time of delay scheduled to be departure. In the instant case delay beyond original schedule time of departure was only 1 Hour 10 minutes i.e. departure time was 14:05 Hrs and the flight took off at 15:15 Hrs. There was no negligence or deficiency of service of the OP because, OP has no control over temperature and wind i.e. meteorological, conditions anywhere, and Clause 1.5 of the Civil Aviation Requirement circular issued by Director General of Civil Aviation under the guidelines of Ministry of Civil Aviation specifically stated that airlines cannot be held liable under the conditions of Force Majeure.

       The OP further argued that waiting for 45 minutes by the complainant at Belt No.1 to collect his luggage, is false and fabricated because, all the passengers were travelling to Guwahati were already informed at Dibrugarh Airport that their luggage had been offloaded due to reason as mentioned above. Hence, waiting for another 45 minutes at Belt No.1 to collect his luggage does not arise at all.

         From the foregoing argument submitted by OP it is found that on 20-05-15 Delhi bound flight No.S2-4392 was travelling to Delhi via Guwahati from Dibrugarh and there were 11 passengers travelling to Guwahati on that day as per Ex-B of the passengers list. On that day there was sudden rise in temperature i.e. above 35 °C at Dibrugarh Airport and wind condition thereto in an around the vicinity at Dibrugarh Airport as seen from the Ext-C. Besides, the length of the runway of the airport is not sufficient to takeoff safely under certain circumstances and parameter. In those parameter and circumstances the technicians of aircraft has to look weight of the aircraft +fuel weight + passenger weight + baggage + cargo weight. Besides, certain parameter has to be looked off at the time  of taking off the flight such as restricted takeoff weight depending on the five factors i.e. runway length, temperature, obstacle limits, altitude of the air field and wind condition. However, upon going through the Ext-C it reveals that on 20-05-15 the temperature exceeded 35°C and prevailing wind condition thereto for which it was not conducive for a normal aircraft to takeoff with all loads i.e.  aircraft weight, fuel weight, passenger weight, baggage and cargo weight. Because Indian Oil Corporation Ltd who supply the fuel for the aircraft was not properly equipped with adequate information at Dibrugarh Airport for defueling. Owing to the above reason some cargo, baggage and fuel had to offloaded which was necessary to be done in order to get the right aircraft considering the runway length ratio.  However, on that day for reducing the fuel from the plane which took some time to takeoff the flight for about 1 Hour 10 minutes. Further, luggage of the Guwahati bound passengers were offloaded and luggage of Delhi bound passengers were allowed to take because the luggage of Guwahati bound passengers could be sent by alternative way by road and also would be delivered at the next morning at their respective houses and as such, the luggage of Guwahati bound passengers were offloaded and the luggage of the Delhi bound passengers were allowed to carry because it was inconvenient to send their luggage to Delhi and there was also no other alternative flight.

 

      Under circumstances stated above luggage of the complainant had to be offloaded as to reduce the calculate load in view of the parameters that governed to takeoff the flight. Considering the safety and the interest of the passengers and the air plane the OP decided to takeoff the aircraft by reducing luggage of the Guwahati bound passengers and also by reducing some of the fuels from the plane which somehow managed to takeoff after delay of one hour more. Besides, it appears from the evidence of the OPs that on the next day morning as assured by the OP the luggage of the complainant and other passengers arrived at their respective house. In this connection it is to be kept in mind that the airlines will not achieve anything by offloading the luggage of the passengers without any valid reason. It was not only in the case of the complainant, the other Guwahati bound passengers had also suffered the same harassment.

 

        In view of the circumstances as narrated by the OP i.e. operational issue which arose on that day, the decision was to be taken by the technical staff of the airlines bearing in the mind of the safety of the passengers. However, it was not only in the case of the complainant alone but it appears that other similar place passengers were also suffered the same and their baggage were given to them on the next date. Further, the OP clearly stated that the luggage would be carried by road and would be delivered on the next date. As such, the question of weighting by the complainant 45 minutes in front of the Belt No.1 of Guwahati Airport does not at all arise. Though their might have been delay in delivery of the claimant’s baggage but he suffered no loss or injury because he was informed prior to his departure from Dibrugarh Airport and the baggage was handed over to him on the next day at his home by the OPs. It is to be kept in mind that the airline authority will not achieve any gain by offloading the luggage of the passengers and by having the pain for carrying the said luggage by road and delivered at the house of every passenger. In the given fact and circumstances, there is no any reasonable ground that it was the negligence on the part of the OP and deficiency in service. The circumstances under which the cargo, luggage and fuel were offloaded was beyond the control of the OP, which could not be construed, in view of the settled law on the subject, as deficiency in service on the part of OP.

 

         In our considered opinion the decisions of the OP airline to offload the luggage of the Guwahati bound passengers considering the operational issue cannot be said to be illogical and motivated decision.

 

        In view of the above discussions we are bound to accept that the plea of operational issue of the OP had no malafide intention to refuse to carry the luggage on that particular date and therefore there is no any serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

       Accordingly, in view of the fact and the circumstances as has been divulged in the case in hand we hold that the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

 

       Accordingly, the case of the complainant is dismissed devoid of merit without cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dr. NITENDRA NATH DAS]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jadav Gogoi]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Dr. Manashi Dutta]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.