INDIAN AIRLINES LTD vs V S Singh

13. THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1986'') has been filed by the appellants (opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in the original complaint) against the order dated 24.8.2004 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur -I, Jaipur in case No. 159/2001 by which the complaint filed by the complainant -respondent No.1 under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was partially allowed in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay to the complainant -respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 1,00,242 within three months from the date of passing order and in case the said amount was not paid within three months, the complainant -respondent No. 1 would be entitled to get interest on the above amount at the rate of 12% p.a. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : On 8.8.2000, the complainant -respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 before the District Forum, Jaipur -II, Jaipur, which was later on transferred to the District Forum, Jaipur -I, Jaipur, stating inter alia that he had purchased air tickets from the respondent No. 2 Durga Travel & Tours (opposite party No. 3 in the original complaint) in the following manner: S. No. No. of Tickets Place Date Jet Airways/Indian Airlines

4 JAIPUR to Delhi 28.5.2000 Jet Airways Elhi to Bagdogra 29.5.2000 Indian Airlines

3.

BAGDOGRA to Delhi 14.6.2000 Jet Airways 4. 4 Delhi to Jaipur 15.6.2000 Jet Airways It was further stated in the complaint that the above tickets were purchased by the complainant -respondent No. 1 in his own name, in the name of his wife and in the name of his two daughters, after paying a sum of Rs. 56,272. It was further stated in the complaint that on 28.5.2000, the complainant respondent No. 1 along with his family members had reached Delhi by Jet Airways Flight. It was further stated in the complaint that on 29.5.2000 when the complainant had reported at Delhi Airport Terminal for going to Bagdogra, he was informed that the flight No. IC 879 would not land at Bagdogra as the runway at Bagdogra Airport was not available on that day due to Damer setting spilled near the runway as there was heavy rain on the previous night. It was further stated in the complaint that the complainant -respondent No. 1 was asked by the office of the appellants that if he wishes, he along with family members could be dropped at Guwahati or Calcutta by Indian Airlines Flight from where they could reach Bagdogra by making their own arrangements, but the complainant -respondent No. 1 did not accept that offer. It was further stated in the complaint that for cancellation of the flight on 29.5.2000, the complainant respondent No. 1 was not informed well in time. It was further stated in the complaint that when runway of Bagdogra Airport was being repaired, therefore, this fact was within the knowledge of the appellants and despite that, they did not provide information in this regard to Jaipur office and on the contrary, their authorized agent respondent No. 2 had issued confirmed and OK tickets for Bagdogra, as such, the complainant respondent No. 1 was left with no option, but to get the tickets cancelled and had to return back to Jaipur along with his family members. It was further stated in the complaint that the act of the appellants amounted to deficiency in service and due to negligence and mistake of the appellants, the complainant respondent No. 1 and his family members had suffered inconveniences and mental agony and in this respect, letters Annex. 4 and Annex. 5 dated 8.6.2000 were written by the complainant -respondent No. 1 to the Chairman and Managing Director and General Manager (Commercial) of Indian Airlines, New Delhi and through letters dated 14.6.2000 (Annex. 7) and 16.6.2000 (Annex. 8), the authorities of the Indian Airlines (appellants) regretted the inconveniences caused to the complainant -respondent No. 1 and his family members, as no prior information was given to him about cancellation of flight to Bagdogra from Delhi on 29.5.2000. According to the complainant -respondent No. 1, the act of the appellants amounted to deficiency in service and hence, compensation in the following manner was claimed by the complainant respondent No. 1: (i) Rs. 7,080 for travelling from Jaipur to Delhi. (ii) Rs. 500 for local transportation. (iii) Rs. 450 for stay at Delhi (iv) Rs. 3,940 for travelling from Delhi to Jaipur (v) Rs. 10,000 for loss caused due to not availing holidays and not attending Govt. work. (vi) Rs. 56,272 Loss of LTC (vii) Rs. 1,00,000 for incoveniences and mental agony caused to complainant and his family members Total : Rs. 1,78,242 A reply was filed by the appellants on 7.11.2000 stating inter alia: (i) That no cause of action had accrued at Jaipur and cause of action had accrued only at Delhi, therefore, present complaint deserves to be dismissed on ground of jurisdiction. (ii) That since the complaint was filed only by the complainant respondent No. 1 and other family members, who were to travel, were not made parties, therefore, it was a case of non -joinder of necessary parties. From this point of view also, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. (iii) That the repair work at Bagdogra Airport was started in January 2000 and it was to be completed by June, 2000 and, therefore, flights, which were to be landed there, were restricted. (iv) That on 28.5.2000, coaltar was laid on the runway at Bagdogra Airport, but due to heavy rain, which had occurred in the night of 28.5.2000, that was displaced and because of that, plane could not land and, therefore, on 29.5.2000 at 6.45 a.m., the Airport Traffic Control, Bagdogra informed the office of the appellants at Delhi by way of fax that Bagdogra Airport would not be available on 29.5.2000 and in such a situation, the flight was cancelled. Thus, there was no fault on the part of the appellants and no mistake or negligence could be attributed. After hearing the parties, the learned District Forum, Jaipur -I, Jaipur through order dated 24.8.2004 partially allowed the complaint of the complainant respondent No. 1 in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia: (i) That plane could not land at Bagdogra Airport because of the damage to the runway on 29.5.2000 and for that, prior information must have been given and by not doing so, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. (ii) That the appellants and their agents were aware of the fact that the runway of Bagdogra Airport was being repaired and despite that, before issuance of OK tickets, they did not inform about this to the complainant -respondent No. 1. (iii) That so far as the amount of Rs. 56,272 is concerned, that amount was to be paid by the Government as tickets were purchased by the complainant respondent No. 1 in availing LTC and since LTC facility, which was going to be availed by the complainant -respondent No. 1 has been interrupted during transit of the journey and complainant -respondent No. 1 had to come back, therefore, the complainant -respondent No. 1 had suffered a loss of Rs. 56,272. (iv) That Rs. 11,970 were further awarded by the District Forum as amount spent by the complainant respondent No. 1 for journey from Jaipur to Delhi and Delhi to Jaipur. (v) That Rs. 32,000 were further awarded by the District Forum as amount of compensation on account of inconveniences and mental agony caused to the complainant respondent No. 1 and his family members due to cancellation of flight from Delhi to Bagdogra on 29.5.2000. Aggrieved from the said order dated 24.8.2002 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur -I, Jaipur, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned Counsel for he appellants: (i) That the jurisdiction for filing complaint was with the consumer Forum at Delhi and not at Jaipur as the flight in question was to take off from Delhi Airport. (ii) That since complaint was filed by the complainant respondent No. 1 alone and not by other family members, therefore, a defect of non -joinder of necessary parties is also there and from this point of view also, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. (iii) That plane could not land at Bagdogra Airport on 29.5.2000 and since for that information was received by the appellants on 29.5.2000 by fax in the morning, therefore, it was not possible for the appellants to inform the complainant -respondent No. 1 earlier to that and since damage to the runway was caused due to the heavy rains, which had fallen on 28.5.2000 at Bagdogra, as a result of which, coaltar was displaced, therefore, for that act, since it was beyond control, appellants could not be held guilty and no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants could be attributed. (iv) That as per Section 14(d) of the Act of 1986, compensation could be awarded only for the loss or injury suffered by the consumers due to deficiency in service of the opposite party and since there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, awarding of compensation was wrong one. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant -respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned order of the learned District Forum. It was further submitted that compensation must have been awarded on two counts: (i) That since because of the cancellation of the flight on 29.5.2000, the complainant respondent No. 1 had to cancel his journey from Delhi to Bagdogra and had to return back from Delhi to Jaipur, therefore, the facility of LTC, which was being used by the complainant -respondent No. 1, has been interrupted and disturbed and since next LTC could only be availed after four years, therefore, for the loss of one LTC, the amount spent on LTC to the tune of Rs. 56,272 and Rs. 11,970 must have been awarded and the learned District Forum has rightly awarded so. (ii) That since inconveniences and mental agony have been caused to the complainant -respondent No. 1 and his family members due to cancellation of flight, therefore, on that count also, compensation must have been awarded and hence, Rs. 32,000 were rightly awarded by the learned District Forum on that count. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant -respondent No. 1 and gone through the entire materials available on record. On point of jurisdiction:

SO far as the argument of jurisdiction is concerned, in our considered opinion, the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and the District Forum, Jaipur -I, Jaipur has rightly entertained the present complaint as the air tickets in question were purchased by the complainant -respondent No. 1 at Jaipur from respondent No. 2 Durga Travel and Tours, Jaipur, an authorized agent of the appellants.

HENCE , argument regarding jursdiction stands rejected. On point of non -joider of necessary parties: So far as the argument of non -joinder of necessary parties is concerned, it may be stated here that since the complainant -respondent No. 1 was availing the facility of LTC and this facility is availed not only by the Government Official himself, but by the members of his family also and if, in such a case, he had not made his wife and daughters as party, by not doing so, it could not be said that it was a case of non -joinder of necessary parties.

HENCE , argument with regard to non -joinder of necessary parties also stands rejected. On point of deficiency in service:

THERE is no dispute on the point that the complainant -respondent No. 1 had purchased four OK and confirmed tickets for journey from Delhi to Bagdogra on 29.5.2000 by Indian Airlines Flight and that flight was cancelled by the appellants on the pretext that fax message was received by them in 29.5.2000 in the morning from the office of Bagdogra Airport that because of damag to runway, flight could not land at Bagdogra Airport. There is also no dispute on the point that as per the case of the appellants themselves, the repair work of runway of Bagdogra Airport was started in January, 2000 and that work as to be completed in the month of June 2000 and, therefore, this fact was within the knowledge of the appellants that the work was going on at Bagdogra Airport and that is why, landings of flights at Bagdogra Airport were restricted. This shows that the appellants were aware of the fact that runway of Bagdogra Airport was not in perfect condition.

THERE is also no dispute on the point that through letters Annex. 7 and Annex. 8, the authorities of the Indian Airlines (appellants) have regretted the inconveniences caused to the complainant -respondent No. 1 and his family members due to non -supply of prior information about cancellation of flight to Bagdogra from Delhi on 29.5.2000.

WHEN the appellants have themselves admitted the fact and regretted the inconvenience caused to the complainant -respondent No. 1 and his family members due to non -giving of prior information to him about cancellation of flight on 29.5.2000 from Delhi to Bagdogra, therefore, case of deficiency in service on the part of the appellants is well established and the learned District Forum has rightly held so. So far as the argument that the appellants had the right to cancel the flight is concerned, the same would not be helpful to the appellants, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It may be stated here that since the appellants and their agents were aware of the fact that repair work of runway of Bagdogra Airport was being done since January, 2000 and landings of flights at Bagdogra Airport were restricted, therefore, in such a situation, before issuance of OK tickets to the complainant -respondent No. 1 and his family members, it was obligatory on the part of the appellants or their agents to have enquired about the progress of work and also to inform the complainant -respondent No. 1 about the factual position of repair work of runway of Bagdogra Airport and by not doing so, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and the learned District Forum has rightly held so.

FOR the reasons stated above, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned District Forum in attributing deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The findings of the learned District Forum in this respect are based on correct appreciation of entire materials and evidence available on record and they do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity. On point of compensation:

IT may be stated here that a consumer is entitled for compensation for any loss or injury suffered due to negligence of the opposite party and further, passengers should not be put to any inconvenience or loss due to mistake of the office of the appellants. In this case, the learned District Forum has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,242 to the complainant respondent No. 1 in the following manner: (i) Rs. 56,272 for loss of LTC, (ii) Rs. 11,970 spent for journey from Jaipur to Delhi and Delhi to Jaipur (iii) Rs. 32,000 for inconveniences and mental agony Total : Rs. 1,00,242 Award of Rs. 56,272 for the loss of LTC and Rs. 11,970 spent for journey from Jaipur to Delhi and Delhi to Jaipur.

AT the very outset, it may be stated here that so far as the amount of Rs. 56,272 as well as the amount of Rs. 11,970 is concerned, that amount must have been realized by the complainant -respondent No. 1 from his parent Department as an amount incurred on LTC.

THE question for consideration is whether for the loss of one LTC tour, which had happened in this case, complainant respondent No. 1 is entitled to any amount of compensation apart from compensation which has been awarded to him to the tune of Rs. 32,000 under the head ''inconveniences and mental agony'' or not. So far as the non -pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.

WHEN compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non -pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that the different circumstances have been taken into consideration.

IN our considered opinion, LTC tour is a tour, which can be treated as a tour for enjoyment and removing mental stress in life of the Government servant and to restore health and vigour, etc. or it can be termed as amenities which had been provided by the Government to its employees. It may further be stated here that a Government servant enjoys facility of LTC tour after four years and since in this case, the respondent No. 1 -complainant had been deprived of facility of one LTC as he had to break up his journey at Delhi and had to come back to Jaipur because of cancellation of flight, therefore, it was a clear case of deprivation of one LTC tour and another LTC would come after four years. Loss of one LTC means loss of amenities and enjoyment and for that, some sort of compensation must have been awarded to the complainant -respondent No. 1, apart from that compensation which has been awarded to him under the heading ''inconveniences and mental agony''.

THUS , looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, if for the loss of one LTC, a sum of Rs. 25,000 is awarded to the complainant -respondent No. 1. apart from the compensation to the tune of Rs. 32,000 awarded under the heading inconveniences and mental agony, it would meet the ends of justice.

HENCE , the complainant -respondent No. 1 would now be entitled to get Rs. 25,000 as amount for loss of one LTC, in place of Rs. 56,272 + Rs. 11,970 = 68,242 and Rs. 32,000 as amount for inconveniences and mental agony, total Rs. 57,000 in place of Rs. 1,00,242 along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. with effect from the date of filing complaint i.e., 8.8.2000 till realization and to that extent on point of compensation, the order of the learned District Forum is liable to be modified. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed on point of compensation in the manner that now the appellants would pay to the complainant -respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 57,000 in place of Rs. 1,00,242 along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. with effect from the date of filing complaint i.e., 8.8.2000 till realization. It is made clear that the amount of Rs. 57,000 includes the amount for loss of one LTC and the amount for inconviences and mental agony. The order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur -I, Jaipur dated 24.8.2004 on point of compensation stands modified accordingly to the extent as indicated above. Appeal partly allowed. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -