INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION vs ABDUL MAJID

-THESE are two cross appeals arising out of the order dated April 3,1992 passed by the State Commission, Madras allowing to the complainant Abdul Majid, a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- as against the Indian Airlines Corporation.

THE complainant, Abdul Majid, who is a well known figure in the field of sports and a permanent office-bearer of the Indian Weight Lifting Federation had purchased from the Indian Airlines a wait listed ticket for travel from Madras to Cochin by Flight No. 1C-529 on October 9, 1991. On his reporting at the counter of the Madras Airport on the date of journey, after a short period of waiting, his wait listed ticket was confirmed along with those of two other wait listed passengers holding tickets for travel by the same flight and a boarding card was issued to him allotting seat No. 8E. THEreafter his baggage was checked in and after he went through the security check and completed the formality of identification of his baggage, he boarded the aircraft and occupied the seat allotted to him as per the boarding card. After about ten minutes, the Duty Officer of the Indian Airlines at the Madras Airport along with two other members of the Airline''s staff came inside the aircraft and asked the complainant to get up from his seat and alight from the aircraft. According to allegations in the complaint on the complainant''s declining to comply with the said demand, the officers of the Airlines forcefully took him out of the aircraft by dragging him down the ramp to the ground as a result of which the complainant''s shirt was torn and he was publicly subjected to humiliating and insulting treatment. THE two other wait listed passengers who had also given confirmation along with the complainant were also taken out from the aircraft and none of them was allowed to board the aircraft before it finally departed for Cochin. According to the version of the complainant, the seats vacated by the complainant and two others were then allowed to be occupied by three other passengers who were allowed to board the plane and proceed to Cochin. THE complainant''s baggage was not restored to him and in consequence he was stranded in Madras for two days without even any change of clothes and had to return to Cochin by alternative means incurring heavy expenditure. THE complainant, therefore, prayed the State Commission for the award of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for loss of reputation and for the mental and physical agony caused to him. The version put forward on behalf of the Indian Airlines in the counter statement filed before the State Commission is that on the date in question there was a long queue at the concerned counter at the Madras airport where the passengers leaving for different flights were all included in the same queue since it was ''computerised checking in''. As a result, three passengers who had confirmed tickets and who were also standing in the queue could not reach the counter before the expiry of half an hour prior to the flight departure time despite the fact that they were present at the airport and were standing in the queue. It was under a wrong impression that the three passengers holding confirmed tickets had failed to show up within the stipulated time limit of half an hour before the departure time that the wait listed tickets of the complainant and two others were endorsed as confirmed. Soon thereafter, the persons with confirmed tickets came to the counter of the airport demanding boarding cards saying that they were all along standing in the queue. Since they have to be preferentially accommodated in the flight by rectifying the mistake of granting confirmation to a three wait listed passengers, the complainant and two others were requested to disembark from the plane after explaining the position to them. The complainant''s allegation that physical force was applied for taking him out of the aircraft was denied in the counter. Relying upon Clause 4 of the Non-international (Carriage of Passengers and Baggage) Regulations, 1989 a plea was raised in the counter that the Indian Airlines Corporation has a right to decide which passenger or article shall be off load, and such decision shall be binding. On the basis of the above averments it was submitted on behalf of the Indian Airlines Corporation that there was no ''deficiency'' in service on its part and the claim for compensation should, therefore, be rejected.

In support of the allegations made by the complainant regarding the use of physical force against him by the staff of the Indian Airlines the complainant filed an affidavit of one Shri C. Chandrababu who was one of the passengers in the flight in question on that date. On the side of the Indian Airlines Corporation a letter from Mr. T.M. Jacob, Minister for Irrigation and Cultural Affairs, Government of Kerala who had also travelled on that day by the same flight from Madras to Cochin was filed before the State Commission.

THE State Commission after discussing in detail all the materials brought on record came to the conclusion that having regard to the fact that the complainant and the two other similarly situated wait listed passengers had after the grant of the confirmation endorsement to them, completed the formality of security check as also the identification of their respective baggage and boarded the plane only thereafter, at least 10-15 minutes'' time must have elapsed between the grant of endorsements on those wait listed tickets and their being requested to disembark from the plane. In the opinion of the State Commission if, as a matter of fact, the three passengers who had confirmed tickets for the flight had reported at the counter of the airport within a few minutes after the expiry of the checking in time, it would easily have been possible to stop the three ''wait listed passengers, whose tickets had been allegedly wrongly endorsed as confirmed even while they were undergoing the security check or while performing the identification of their baggage, well before they actually boarded the aircraft. After referring to the fact that the shirt which the complainant had been wearing at the time when he was taken out of the aircraft clearly showed a tear in the left arm and relying also upon the fact that the Hon''ble Minister for Civil Aviation and Tourism to whom a complaint had been submitted by Mr. Abdul Majid had replied to him stating inter alia "in fact the Indian Airlines officials responsible for this accident have already been reprimanded", the State Commission has recorded the finding that some members of the Indian Airlines must have pulled the complainant by his shirt and as a result thereof it had got torn in the left arm. On a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission held that a ''deficiency'' in service on the part of the Indian Airlines Corporation was made out and a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded to the complainant. We have carefully gone through the evidence available on record and considered the arguments advanced by Counsel appearing on both sides. We agree with the State Commission that the version given by the Indian Airlines Corporation for confirming his wait listed ticket and directing the complainant to disembark from the aircraft for the purpose of providing seat to another passenger who allegedly had a confirmed ticket for the same flight has not been convincingly established as true. Hence the State Commission was right in not accepting the said version. We do not also find any ground to disagree with the finding entered by the State Commission that the complainant has satisfactorily proved his case that his shirt got torn as a result of the force applied to its arm by the staff of the Indian Airlines while he was being taken out from the aircraft. In these circumstances, the State Commission was right in holding that there was ''deficiency'' in service on the part of the appellant-Indian Airlines Corporation. The quantum of compensation fixed by the State Commission is perfectly reasonable and it calls for no interference.

NOTHING contained in this order will have any adverse effect or repercussion on the right that the Indian Airlines Corporation may have under the Non-International (Passengers and Baggage) Regulations, 1989 regarding its rights to offload passengers under legitimate circumstances. Subject to the above observations, Appeal No. 186 of 1992 filed by the Indian Airlines Corporation is dismissed with costs which we fix at Rs. 1,500/. First Appeal No. 321 of 1992 has been filed by the complainant Shri Abdul Majid seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to him by the Indian Airlines Corporation. This appeal has been filed before this Commission after a long delay of about four months. Even though Miscellaneous Petition No. 371 of 1992 has been filed by the appellant praying for condonation of the delay, no valid, satisfactory or adequate grounds in explanation of the inordinate delay have been put forward by the appellant. In the circumstances, we reject the prayer for condonation of delay and dismiss this appeal on the ground that it is time barred. The parties will bear their respective costs.

THE Demand Draft for Rs. 11,000/- drawn in favour of the first respondent which has been deposited in the Registry of this Commission by the appellant in First Appeal No. 186 of 1992 compliance with our interim order dated 20th May, 1992 will be forthwith delivered over to the Counsel for the first respondent and the said amount will be adjusted by the first respondent as part payment of the sum due to him under the State Commission''s order. Appeal dismissed with costs.