INDIAN AIRLINES vs B.D.Sharma

AN air ticket of appellant-airlines was purchased by the respondent who is an IPS officer for Delhi-Mumbai-Thiruvananthapuram-Delhi. In spite of having been provided the ''Confirmed'' status, the respondent was not allowed to board the flight. The reason given by the appellant was overbooking.

HOLDING the airlines guilty of deficiency in service the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 5.9.2005 directed it to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. Stand of the appellant is that the passengers at airport are entertained on ''first-cum-first-served'' basis and, therefore, the respondent was bona fidely denied the boarding card for the flight. However, the respondent and other such passengers were accommodated in another flight to Kochi from where they were provided surface transport upto their destination. A legal objection was also raised by the appellant that the ticket was purchased by the Border Security Force (BSF) as the respondent was posted as Inspector General (Provisioning) and, therefore, main consumer was BSF and without permission of the BSF, complaint was not maintainable.

We will deal with the legal objection first. Merely because the respondent was posted with the BSF and the ticket was purchased by the BSF does not mean that the respondent was not a consumer qua the appellant, ''Consumer'' as defined by Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails the service for consideration. In the instant case the ticket was purchased by the BSF for the travel and benefit of the respondent. The objection is wholly groundless and devoid of merit but at the same time the learned Counsel for the appellant has also brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Another v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541, wherein the observations were made that Union of India Government shall constitute a Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary for resolving the disputes between Government organization through mutual consultation.

THIS is not such a dispute between the public sector undertaking and the Government that comes within the ambit of a Committee headed by a Cabinet Secretary. The nature of the dispute is not the one which was enunciated by the Supreme Court the simple dispute before us is whether the appellant is guilty of deficiency in service. The disputes proposed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case were those that arise between the Government and public sector undertakings as to their contracts or business relationship so that none of them resorts to litigation at the cost of the public exchequer. Now we advert to merits of the case. The explanation given by the appellant that their system is to entertain on ''first-cum-first-served basis'' is very strange. If such a system was evolved by the appellant-airlines there was no idea in giving status of ''OK'' ticket or ''confirmed'' ticket. They were free to issue as many tickets to the passengers as they wanted, may be twice the number of seats available in the plane and asked the people to come to the airport and make a queue like any other queue and entertain only those passengers who are in the queue for the purpose of boarding the plane. Such a system by no stretch of imagination can be termed as a meaningful or orderly system or a system having the ingredients of good governance. Such a system will result in chaotic situation.

PASSENGERS are sold the tickets through the agents or directly by the airlines. Once the airlines provides the status of the ticket ''OK'' or ''confirmed'' it has no right to deny the boarding pass to the passengers in possession of such a ticket for any reasons whatsoever. We are living in a civilized and orderly society and, therefore, to take such plea that the passengers who purchase the tickets and are given the OK status and confirmed status can be denied the boarding pass if they are not a part of the queue meant for "first-come-first served". Appellate-airlines was rightly accused of deficiency in service in denying boarding pass to the respondent who had an ''OK'' ticket and also reported at the airport more than one hour before the departure time. Deficiency, for purpose of protection of interests of consumers means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

SUCH providers of service cannot be allowed to escape from their responsibility and have to pay for their deficiency in service.

FOREGOING reasons pursuade us to dismiss the appeal being misconceived and misdirected. Appellant shall pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 12,000 within 15 days. The FDR, if any deposited by the appellant, be returned forthwith.

A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of costs and also the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal dismissed.