State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Airports Authority Of India vs Alok Kumar Sinha on 24 February, 2009
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 24-02-2009 Appeal No. FA-818/2006 (Arising from the order dated 21-07-2006 passed by District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai-II, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.DV-VII/42/06) Airports Authority of India, -Appellant Through Airport Manager, Through Palam Airport, Mr. Digvijay Rai, New Delhi. Advocate. Versus 1. Shri Alok Kumar Sinha, -Respondent No.1 Material Manager, Through Northern Coalfields Limited Mr. G.K. Srivastava, C-59, Vikash Kunj Colony NCL, Advocate. Hq. Singarull Sindh (M.P.), Pin-486889. 2. The Indian Airlines, -Respondent No.2 Through the Manager Indian Airlines, Palam, New Delhi. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) On account of rash and negligent driving of a vehicle provided by respondent No.2-Indian Airlines for carrying passengers from aircraft to arrival terminal building causing injury to the respondent No.1, who fell down and suffered fracture of two fingers the appellant-Authority has also been directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- as cost of litigation.
At the same time respondent No.2-Indian Airlines has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings suffered by the respondent No.1.
2. The impugned order has been assailed by the appellant-Authority on the premise that neither does it provide the service of ferrying the passengers from aircraft to arrival terminal building nor is the driver of the vehicle provided by it to the respondent-Airlines nor he is its employee. Further that it only manages the Airport whereas the Indian Airlines has its own independent fleet of vehicles for providing these services.
3. The case of the respondent leading to the impugned order, in brief, is that in his capacity as Convener of a high level committee consisting of senior officers he was required to play pivotal role in arranging meetings at Delhi and Mumbai, organising travel arrangements of the members of the committee and for that purpose he travelled from Varanasi to Delhi on 18-09-2005 by flight of respondent No.2-Indian Airlines which landed at Delhi at about 5.00 P.M. For going to the terminal building after coming of the aircraft the respondent No.1 boarded a coach provided by appellant. He was not provided chair and had to travel standing in the coach which was heavily loaded. According to the respondent No.1 the driver of the coach was driving the coach in a rash and negligent manner and when he applied sudden break the respondent NO.1 fell down along with other co-passengers who fell over him as a result of which he suffered injuries over his face and two fingers of his right hand were fractured. The respondent No.1 approached the doctor on duty at Delhi Airport who took the matter very casually and instead of providing sufficient treatment to him administered him pain killer as first aid. It is further case of the respondent No.1 that when he complained to the doctor of severe pain and the trauma the doctor dismissed him saying that there was no diagnostic facility available and that he would provide only first aid. The pain, however, become intolerable and the respondent No.1 had to consult a doctor at Diwan Chand Satya Pal Aggarwal X-Ray Clinic where he was advised X-ray and thereafter was treated at Fortis Hospital where his two fingers were strapped/plastered for three weeks and he was advised physiotherapy thereafter. On account of serious injuries suffered by him he had to cancel the meeting slated for 07.30 p.m. on 18-09-2005 with Blue Star Limited and the whole purpose of his visit to Delhi on 18-09-2005 became infructuous. The respondent No.1 could not assist the committee on 19-09-2005 and also had to cancel his visit to Mumbai where he was to attend the meeting and thereby suffered unjustified loss and incurred expenditure. The respondent No.1 has alleged that he suffered serious injuries on account of negligence and rashness on the part of the coach driver of Indian Airlines. Further, Airport Authority of India failed to provide him adequate medical treatment and therefore both appellant and respondent No.2 are liable to compensate him for the injuries suffered by him and mental and physical suffering as also for the pecuniary loss. The respondent No.1 has sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- as general damages, Rs. 2,00,000/- for special damages, Rs. 8,00,000/- for mental and physical harassment. The total claim is to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/-.
4. While admitting that the respondent No.1 had travelled by its flight No. IC-805 from Varanasi to Delhi on 18-09-2005 respondent No.2 claimed that there was no deficiency as regards carrying the respondent No.1 from the aircraft to the arrival terminal building. According to respondent No.2 there were sufficient coaches to carry passengers to the terminal building and if one coach was full the respondent No.1 should have waited and boarded another coach. The respondent No.1 on his own boarded the coach which was already full and travelled by standing. On arrival at the terminal building the respondent No.1 reported that he had suffered injuries due to jerk on which he was attended by a doctor on duty at the airport and was provided with immediate medical aid and was escorted to MI room where he was offered medicines which he refused to accept.
5. Similarly appellant has denied deficiency in service on its part.
According to it there is an MI room where a doctor is on duty and in need he provides medical aid. The function of appellant is to have basic medical facilities and a passenger requiring medical attention is provided with first aid and if further treatment is required the patient/passenger has to go to the hospital. Appellant maintains that it is not its function or duty to have medical facility comparable to a hospital or nursing home and therefore there are no facilities for investigation and follow up treatment at the airport. The doctor posted at the Airport is on call duty for providing first aid to the passenger. The respondent No.1 was provided with first aid and was administered pain killers and there being no facility for investigation or laboratory test no further service could be provided.
Appellant maintains that the respondent No.1 has not suffered any loss or damage due to its negligence or deficiency in service.
6. As to the functions of the appellant-Authority is concerned the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 referred to clause 6.59 of the Facilitation to the Convention on International Civil Aviation Organisation (International Standards and Recommended Practices), which reads as under :-
6.59 Recommended Practices : There should be maintained at International Airports an organised, immediately responsible staff with facilities for first aid attendance on site and appropriate arrangements should be available for expeditious referral of the occasional more serious case to pre-arranged competent medical attention.
7. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. There is no doubt that it is the obligatory function of the appellant to provide at the airport such services like medical first aid under such situation to the travelling passengers. It is not expected from the Airport Authority to have such medical facilities so as to attend to the fracture suffered by a passenger which requires independent treatment. What is expected from them is to provide immediate service who needs emergency treatment like providing ambulance, immediate first aid etc. and to run a hospital at the Airport may not be possible but the Airport Authority may take into consideration such problems particularly emergency cases in view of the expansion of the Airport and large number of passengers having been switched over to travel by air.
8. In the instant case the situation was not such that the appellant was required to make appropriate arrangement for expeditious referral.
Such services may be required if a person suffers any stroke or any such life threatening situation. It is in more serious cases that pre-arranged competent medical attention is required. There is no material on record to show that respondent No.1 was in such a condition which required appropriate arrangement or pre-arranged competent medical attention other than the first aid attendance. He suffered fracture of two fingers and there was no other serious problem he faced for which expeditious referral or pre-arranged competent medical attendance was to be made.
9. In our view the sole liability, if any, is that of respondent No.2-airlines and, therefore, the order of payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- by respondent No.2-Airlines is maintained whereas the order directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and also to pay Rs. 2,500/- as cost of litigation is set aside.
However the entire cost of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid by respondent No.2-Airline.
10. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
11. Appeal is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
12. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
13. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
14. Announced on 24th February, 2009.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj