STATION MANAGER, INDIAN AIRLINES vs B.B. DAS

THIS appeal is against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa by which they awarded Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the complainant and costs which they assessed at Rs. 500/-. It was further ordered that the claimant would be paid the above amounts within two months from the date of receipt of the Order.

THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that B.B. Das (hereinafter referred to as complainant), who is respondent in the present appeal, had filed a claim petition before the said State Commission against the present appellants. In the complaint the case of the complainant was that he had a confirmed booking by flight No. IA-497 from Bhubaneshwar to Delhi on 29th May, 1990 and for the return journey by flight No. IA-477 from Delhi to Bhubaneshwar. He had purchased me ticket from Mayur Agencies (Authorised Booking Agent of Indian Airlines at Cuttack). On the 29 May, 1990 the complainant reported at Bhubaneswar Airport at 4 p.m. as the flight was scheduled to leave at 5.30 p.m. After a long waiting, the complainant and other passengers were informed at about 6.30 p.m. that the flight would be delayed till 10.30 p.m. THE complainant reported again at 10 p.m., but the aircraft landed at Bhubaneshwar at 11.45 p.m. and took off at 0.15 a.m. THE plane landed at Delhi at 2.45 a.m. and the complainant was able to reach his destination at 3.30 a.m. Thus the complainant was put to considerable physical hardship and mental tension. On 1.6.1990, after ascertaining from the airport about the departure of flight No. IC-477, which was to leave at 7 p.m., the complainant reported at Palam Airport at 5.45 a.m. The complainant went through the security checks at 6.15 a.m. He noticed that till 7.15 a.m. the closed circuit T.V. indicated security and boarding at 6.30 a.m. and 7 a.m. respectively, but at 7.15 a.m. the timing for boarding was changed to 9 a.m. However, the boarding time was not announced till 9.50 a.m. After announcement of the boarding time as 10 a.m., the complainant boarded the aircraft but the flight actually took off at 10.30 a.m. as the aircraft was under repairs. The aircraft landed at Raipur airport at 12.15 p.m. All the passengers waited inside the aircraft for about 45 minutes for the aircraft to take off. Thereafter the passengers were asked to disembark and wait at airport lounge for further instructions as the aircraft was under repairs. There was not enough space for passengers in the lounge and the conditions got further aggravated as all the doors and windows on the airstrip side of the lounge were closed as a measure of security. Thus as there was no natural ventilation, suffocating condition was created inside the lounge. No lunch was served to the passengers including the complainant. At about 2 p.m. some personnel of the Indian Airlines informed the passengers that a coach would take them to the city for lunch. However, the coach did not turn up. At 4.30 p.m. the passengers were informed about its arrival. The passengers were further told that they could either stay in hotels or proceed to Bhubaneshwar by road by hired taxies. The Station Manager also told the passengers that in case they reported at Indian Airlines City Office they could have refund of the proportionate air fare so that they could proceed in hired taxies to Bhubaneshwar. The complainant alongwith some other passengers contacted the City Office of the Indian Airlines, but the duty officer there refused to refund the fare. Finally after a long waiting the complainant checked in a hotel at 6.30 p.m. and had snacks and tea at 7 p.m.. During the night he was accommodated in one room of the hotel alongwith another passenger.

Thus the case of the complainant was that he was put to untold suffering owing to physical strain and mental tension due to the careless and callous attitude on the part of the Indian Airlines. On the above allegations he claimed the, following reliefs: (i) The Indian Airlines must undertake to provide safe, reliable and dependable service to the travelling public. (ii) The Indian Airlines must undertake to inform the intending passenger well in advance about change of schedule. (iii) The Indian Airlines must provide suitable accommodation including food to stranded passengers. (iv) The Indian Airlines must take suitable action against those of its employees who have neglected their duty in looking after the comforts of the stranded passenger. (iv) The Indian Airlines may be directed to pay a compensation of Rupees ten thousand to the complainant for the loss he has suffered for the reasons mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.

It may be mentioned here that though the complainant had mentioned in the complaint that he was filing the complaint in his individual capacity as consumer and he had suffered loss of Rs. 10,000/- on account of careless and callous treatment on the part of the Indian Airlines but the loss suffered by all the passengers would be more than Rupees one lakh. He, therefore, valued the complaint at Rs. 1,10,000/- as compensation and other remedial action to be taken by the Indian Airlines.

THE appellants, who were respondents in the claim petition, contested the claim petition and pleaded that the relief claimed by the complainant was only Rs. 10,000/- and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable before the State Commission; that there was no fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality and manner of performance which is required to be maintained under law by Indian Airlines in relation to carriage by air of passengers inasmuch as the Indian Airlines has no absolute obligation to render uninterrupted carriage by air service as would be evident from the provisions of the Indian Airlines noninternational carriage (passenger and baggage) Regulations, 1980; that compensation can be claimed by a complainant only in the event if negligence has been alleged and proved on the part of the party which is rendering service; that every effort is made by the Indian Airlines to ensure that the flights arrive and depart at scheduled time and that the passengers are afforded maximum comfort but some times it is beyond the power and control of the Indian Airlines that the flights have to be delayed or cancelled altogether on account of technical reasons; that if any inconvenience results on account of delay due to technical reasons the same is absolutely unavoidable and beyond the power and control of the Indian Arilines; that there was no deficiency in the service rendered by the Indian Airlines or its officers. On merits it was pleaded that on 29th May, 1990, flight No. IC-497 was to leave Bhubaneshwar for Delhi at 1700 Hrs (i.e. 5 p.m.). However, on the date the communication links data circuit etc. were not working due to the strike by P&T Engineers as a result of which the Stations of the Indian Airlines were delinked from different circuits. As such, it was not possible for the Bhubaneshwar station of Indian Airlines to get the departure details of any flight during the period from 23rd May, 1990 to 30th May, 1990. (It may be mentioned here that there are no separate aircrafts for carrying passengers from Bhubaneshwar to Delhi and from Delhi to Bhubaneshwar. One aircraft with change in flight numbers plys between Delhi and Bhubaneshwar). Incidentally, another flight was diverted on 29th May, 1990 to Bhubaneshwar on account of bad weather over Calcutta and with the help of wireless of that aircraft contract was established between Bhubaneshwar and Delhi at 4.30 p.m. and at that time the Indian Airlines people came to know that the flight was delayed at Delhi and the revised estimated time of departure from Delhi was fixed at 8.15 p.m. instead of 2 p.m. All the passengers at Bhubaneshwar Airport were informed on the public address system and also on incoming telephone calls. Thus the delay in departure of IC-497 on 29th May, 1990 was beyond the control and power of the Indian Airlines. The departure was fixed at 11.15 p.m. At Bhubaneshwar Airport all the passengers who had checked in were served with light refreshment at the airport. The Indian Airlines coach was available on demand if any passenger wanted to return to the city for the period of delay. All measures were taken for the comfort of all the passengers. About the incident of 1st June, 1990, it was stated that the delay in the departure of 3 hours 3 minutes of IC477 from Delhi as due to the fact that the refuelling valve No. 1 of oil tank had got struck and was not opening. This delay was announced at 6.30 a.m. The aforesaid technical snag was rectified after malfunctioning components were replaced. The passengers were served with breakfast at airport at 7.30 a.m. and the flight left Delhi at 10.15 a.m. At Raipur the flight landed in a normal manner. Only at the time of departure, when the engines were to be switched on, some problem in engine was detected. The ground engineers were summoned and it was noticed that the auxiliary power unit at auto starter had shut down. Persistent efforts were made to start the engine with the help of local engineers but without success. On account of such technical snag the aircraft had to be grounded. All the buildings at the airdrome belong to and are maintained by the International Airport Authority or National Airport Authority, of India as the case may be. Accordingly all announcements on the public address system are done by the said authorities. A staff member of the Indian Airlines was deputed to look after the passengers. M.P.S. T.D.C. coach was pressed into service to transport the passengers from the airport to city/hotel and it made a number of trips. In addition 9 taxies were also pressed into service transport stranded passengers to the city. The passengers were accommodated in various hotels of the city. It was also pointed out to the passengers that the first flight coming from Delhi would be utilised for carrying them from Raipur to Bhubaneshwar and the snagged aircraft would return to Delhi after rectification of the snag. All the bills for accommodation and meals and taxi bill have been paid by the Indian Airlines. Refund of fare is allowed only against the tickets paid in cash. Refund o tickets purchased against credit or through agents, the amount is refunded through agents.

THE State Commission held that as the Indian Airlines is controlled by Central Government it is an "other Authority" under Art. 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, it can be presumed that there was good cause for the delay in the flights. However, they allowed Rs. 500/- as compensation to the complainant for inconvenience caused to him at the Bhubaneshwar Airport on 29th May, 1990 on account of the non-announcement of the flight time. THEy also awarded Rs. 1,500/- as compensation, on account of the inconvenience caused to the complainant at Raipur Airport on the ground that there was deficiency in the rendering of service inasmuch as there was misbehaviour towards the passengers. Thus, in all, as mentioned earlier, Rs. 2,000/- as compensation was awarded to the claimant alongwith Rs. 500/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved, the Indian Airlines as well as their officers who were made respondents in original complaint have come before this Commission is appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the complaint was not maintainable before the State Commission as the claim of the complainant was only for Rs. 10,000/-and therefore, it ought to have been filed before the District Forum. We do not see much force in this argument. It is a settled principle that a Court or Tribunal having higher pecuniary jurisdiction can also try cases which fall within the competence of Court or Tribunal having lower pecuniary jurisdiction. The appellants have not been able to show that any prejudice has been caused to them by the trial of this complaint by the State Commission. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the complainant had evaluated his complaint at Rs. 1,10,000/- for jurisdictional purpose. It is immaterial as to what particular relief was claimed by the complainant. According to him he suffered a loss of Rs. 10,000/- and the loss suffered by other passengers would be more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thus the trial of the complaint by the State Commission is not bad in law. Learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon a judgment of this Commission rendered in First Appeal No. 10 of 1989 in Indian Airlines v. Shri Rajesh Kumar Upadhya decided on February 2, 1990 wherein it was remarked: "The Forums constituted under Consumer Protection Act are invested with jurisdiction under Section 14(d) of the Act to award compensation to the consumers only for any loss or injury suffered by the consumers "due to the negligence of the opposite party". Proof that there was negligence and that it had/ caused the particular loss or injury is a ''sine qua non'' for the award of compensation under this provision. Where there is no such proof, compensation cannot legally be awarded under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act."

It was argued that under the regulations referred to above the Indian Airlines is not liable for damages occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers or baggage. On the basis of the observations made by the Commission in Indian Airlines'' case (Supra) and the above regulations, the learned Counsel for the appellants further argued that in the present case the complainant has not appeared in the witness box to prove the negligence on the part of the Indian Airlines either at Bhubaneshwar Airport on 29th May, 1990 or at Raipur Airport on 1st June, 1990 and as far as the question of delay in flight is concerned the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. As noticed earlier the State Commission has not allowed any compensation to the complainant on account of delay in the flights. Therefore, we need not dwell upon the above argument.

THE only question to be considered is whether there has been negligence on the part of the Indian Airlines officers towards the passengers on 29th May, 1990, at Bhubaneshwar airport and on 1st June, 1990 at Raipur airport. Even if the complainant has not appeared in the witness box, the pleadings of the parties can be gone into to find out if there has been any negligence or deficiency in rendering of service by the Indian Airlines or its staff. About the incident at Bhubaneshwar Airport the State Commission has remarked. "Protection for delay under the Regulations cannot absolve the officers of showing minimum courtesy to make the passengers known that the flight would be delayed. Detention for about two hours with anxiety of arrival of the flight without any intimation is a serious deficiency in service. It is not disputed that communication between Stations is provided to know the cause. If post and telegraph communications would have been the only mode, Officers of Bhubaneshwar Station had reason not to intimate the passengers that there would be delay or cause there for. It is beyond control of the Officers. From the statement of the Officer before the Commission that there is also another mode of communication by wireless available at Bhubaneshwar station. It is clear that opposite parties suppressed this fact when they stated that on the diverted flight arriving at Bhubaneshwar, they used the wireless of the plane is thus intentional. From that officer, we could know that the operator of the station wireless equipment was transferred and the newly posted operator had not joined by that date. When there was postal strike and communication facilities provided by it were not working, it was expected of the Airlines to have its own communication system effective. Thus, the deficiency in not intimating the delay in flight schedule is a own creation of the Airlines and suffering of the complainant is to compensated."

We agree with these observations. Moreover, it is clear from the written statement that the telephone system at Bhubaneshwar was working. As noticed earlier it has been pleaded in the written statement that the departure time was announced on the public address system and also on incoming telephone calls. THErefore, when the passengers were anxiously waiting at the Bhubaneshwar Airport to know about the departure of the flight, it was the duty of the Indian Airlines Officers to use the telephones to find out departure time of the flight from Delhi. It is not the case of the Indian Airlines that Bhubaneshwar was completely cut off from the rest of the country as far as the telecommunications were concerned. It appears that at Bhubaneshwar nobody bothered about the plight of the passengers. Thus we maintain the finding of the State Commission that there had been deficiency in the rendering of service towards the passengers by the Indian Airlines and its staff on 29th May, 1990 at Bhubaneshwar Airport.

SIMILARLY we agree with the finding of the State Commission that there had been deficiency in rendering of service on 1st June, 1990 at Raipur Airport where the passengers were stranded on account of a snag in the aircraft. It is the specific case of the complainant that at 2 p.m. the Indian Airlines personnel had informed that a coach would take the passengers to the city for lunch etc but it did not turn up till 4.30 p.m. and then the passengers were informed about the coming of the coach for taking them to the city. The appellants gave a vague reply to that averment. They pleaded : "It is wrong and denied that nothing was served for lunch and that the complainant waited in a congested airport lounge at Raipur till 4.15 p.m. In fact, a staff of the respondent was deputed to lookafter the complainant. M.P.S.T.D.C. coach was pressed into service to transport the passengers from the airport to city/hotel which made a number of trips. In addition, 9 taxies were also pressed into service to transport the stranded passengers to the city."

It has not been specifically pleaded by the Indian Airlines people that lunch was served to the passengers at Raipur Airport or at about 2 p.m. they were taken to the city for lunch etc. It has also not been specifically controverted that the passengers left the Raipur Airport at about 4.30 p.m. in the coach or taxies for Raipur city and thereafter they took lunch or snacks. Thus the passengers had to starve at the Raipur Airport upto much beyond 4.30 p.m. When the Airlines Officials had come to know at about 2 p.m. that the aircraft had developed a snag and was not fit to be taken further, they ought to have looked after the stranded passengers in a proper manner. They ought to have realised that the passengers were cramped in an illventilated lounge and that it was summer season. They ought to have have them to suitable places, where they would have been able to have their meals and take rest. Hence we confirm the finding of the State Commission about this incident also. The State Commission has not allowed compensation only on account of deficiency in the rendering of service. The complainant had suffered physically as well as mentally. The amount of compensation awarded on these accounts does not appear to be on higher side.

We do not find any force in the present appeal and consequently dismiss it. We make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.