Delhi District Court
Narinder Kalia vs Air India Ltd. And Ors on 23 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-05, NEW DELHI
DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 327/2017
In the matter of : -
Narinder Kalia
S/o Late Sh. Ram Prakash Kalia
R/o 3A/77-78, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi.
...... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Air India Ltd.
Through its Chairman and Managing Director
Regd. Office: Airlines House, 113,
Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,
New Delhi.
...... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 4,72,000/-
(RUPEES FOUR LAKHS SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND
ONLY) ALONGWITH PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE
INTEREST
Date of Institution : 19.01.2017
Date when judgment reserved : 21.01.2025
Date of Judgment : 23.01.2025
J U D G M E N T :-
1. Vide this judgment I shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.4,72,000/-
CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 1 of 21 alongwith pendentelite and future interest against the defendant.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief as set out in the plaint is that the plaintiff is a British national and is residing in Birmingham along with his family. The defendant is an international air carrier having its headquarter at Indian Airlines House, New Delhi and it was constituted under the Air Corporations Act, 1953. The plaintiff preferred services of the defendant for the round trip from Birmingham to Amritsar to Birmingham via Delhi. The Plaintiff boarded the flight bearing No. AI 114 on 18.01.2015 from Birmingham vide ticket No. 098-2110481825 which was scheduled to reach Amritsar on 19.01.2015 at 13:45 hours. When the flight landed, the plaintiff found one of his checked in bags lost. He immediately lodged a property irregularity report with the defendant vide world tracer No. ATQAI123948 and also sent several mails. The said bag contained the items as per the details mentioned in para no. 5 of the plaint. While returning to Birmingham, the plaintiff boarded the flight AI 113 from Amritsar on 08.02.2015 at 10.30 hrs which was scheduled to reach its destination i.e. Birmingham via Delhi. However, the said flight was carelessly delayed at Delhi for more than 8 hours on account of non availability of the cabin crew for the flight. Such an attitude from an International carrier was beyond any explanation. The plaintiff was in a state of dismay and shock due to unprofessional attitude of the defendant and he was not CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 2 of 21 provided any satisfactory response regarding loss of his baggage despite various emails and telephonic calls. The plaintiff has been running from pillar to post and has not received any fruitful result towards the loss of baggage even after passing of more than 1½ years. Hence, the present suit.
3. The plaintiff by way of present suit has claimed Rs.1,57,000/- towards loss of his belongings, Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.43,000/- for purchasing necessary clothing and belongings totaling to Rs.4,72,000/- from the defendant along with interest @ 18% per annum pendente lite and future.
4. The defendant has contested the suit by filing the written statement contending that the plaintiff has tried to combine two different cause of actions in one suit. It is stated that the as per own case of the plaintiff, he travelled on two different flights of the defendant airlines. The cause of action pertaining to the loss of baggage arose from the travel from Birmingham to Amritsar by AI 114 on 18.01.2015 and cause of action pertaining to delay in the flight arose from the travel from Amritsar to Birmingham by AI 113 on 08.02.2015 and, therefore, the present suit arising from two different cause of actions is liable to be dismissed on this ground. It is further contended that at no point of time, any declaration with respect to the contents of baggage was made. Even at the time of filing the property irregularity report, the plaintiff only informed that CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 3 of 21 the baggage contained clothes and did not provide any other information. It is stated that as per general conditions of Carriage for Passengers and Baggage, in case of international carriage, the maximum liability of the carrier is only 1,131 Special Drawing Rights (in short "SDRs") which is equivalent to Rs. 1,03,810/-. As per the said condition, a passenger would be entitled to a higher compensation only if a special declaration is made and a corresponding fees is paid by the passenger to the carrier. It is contended that the plaintiff's baggage weighed 23 kgs and hence the defendant airlines is willing to offer 391 SDR @ 17SDR per kg. It is further contended that the defendant airlines is not liable for the delay which was caused due to shortage of cabin crew which was beyond the control of the defendant airlines. The defendant airlines however took necessary care in providing snacks to the passengers who were traveling. As per the carriage by Air Act, the defendant is not liable for the delay if it is proved that all necessary measures were taken and the delay was caused due to reasons beyond the control of the airlines. The defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been settled by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 28.07.2018 for adjudication :-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation beyond the rate stipulated under General Conditions of Carriage and relevant rules of the Carriage by Air Act of CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 4 of 21 391 SDR? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is bound by the provision with regard to travel and travel related compensation as per the General Conditions of Carriage and relevant rules by Carriage by Air Act? OPD.
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any compensation due to delay caused in the said flight on account of non availability of cabin crew?OPP.
4. Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of two different causes of action involved in the present suit? OPD.
5. Whether defendant can be held liable for the omissions made in the Passenger Advice and Complaint Team (PACT), Civil Aviation Authority? OPD.
6. Relief.
6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined his attorney Sh. Mukesh Sharma as PW-1 as his sole witness who filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A reiterating the averments made in the plaint. During his deposition, he relied upon and exhibited the following documents:-
1. Original SPA dated 12.10.2018 : Ex. PW1/1.
2. Copy of passport/Visa of the : Mark A (though mentioned plaintiff as Ex.PW1/2 in the affidavit) CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 5 of 21
3. Copy of property irregularity : Mark B report (though mentioned as Ex. PW1/3 in affidavit).
4. Copy of emails : Ex.PW1/4 (Colly)
5. Affidavit u/s 65B of Indian : Ex.PW1/5 Evidence Act
6. Legal notice dated 05.10.2016 : Ex. PW1/6
7. Postal receipt dated 05.10.2016 : Ex.PW1/7
7. On the other hand, defendant examined its Assistant Manager (commercial) Sh. Vijay Punj who also tendered his affidavit in evidence which is Ex.DW1/1 wherein he has deposed as per the averments made in the written statement.
During his deposition, he relied upon and exhibited the following documents:-
1. Copy of office order bearing : Ex.D1 no. DRD/3/2020/141 dated 28.08.2020
2. Copy of receipt of food and : Mark A beverages provided to the (though mentioned passengers as Ex.D2 in the affidavit and the same was de-
exhibited being a photocopy)
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.
CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 6 of 21
9. On the basis of material available on record, my issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue no. 1 to 3 Whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation beyond the rate stipulated under General Conditions of Carriage and relevant rules of the Carriage by Air Act of 391 SDR?
& Whether plaintiff is bound by the provision with regard to travel and travel related compensation as per the General Conditions of Carriage and relevant rules by Carriage by Air Act?
& Whether plaintiff is entitled to any compensation due to delay caused in the said flight on account of non availability of cabin crew?
10. These issues are taken up together for discussion being inter linked and the discussion thereupon is going to be common. The onus to prove the Issue no. 1 & 3 is on the plaintiff and the onus to prove the Issue no. 2 is on the defendant.
11. From the pleadings of the parties, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff booked the air tickets of the defendant airlines for the round trip from Birmingham to Amritsar to Birmingham via Delhi. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff undertook the journey from Birmingham to Amrtisar by flight bearing No. AI 114 on 18.01.2015 of the defendant airlines CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 7 of 21 vide ticket no. 098-2110481825 and again undertook the journey by flight bearing No. AI 113 of the defendant airlines from Amritsar on 08.02.2015 which was scheduled to reach Birmingham via Delhi. However, the grievance of the plaintiff is two fold. Firstly, that when the flight bearing No. A1 114 landed at Amrisar, he found one of his checked-in bags lost for which he immediately lodged a Property Irregularity Report with the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the lost bag contained his belongings worth Rs.1,57,500/- and despite various requests and communications, he did not get any satisfactory answer in respect of the lost bag from the defendant side. Secondly, that when he boarded flight No. A1 113 from Amritsar on 08.02.2015 which was scheduled to reach its destination i.e. Birmingham, it got delayed for 8 hours due to non availability of cabin crew due to which he suffered mental and psychological harassment for which he claims Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation from the defendant. The plaintiff has also claimed Rs.43,000/- from the defendant towards cost of purchasing necessary clothing and other belongings.
12. The defendant in the written statement has contended that the plaintiff at no point of time had made any declaration regarding contents of the baggage and in the absence of the same, maximum liability of the carrier is only 1131 SDR. It is also claimed by the defendant that it is not liable for the delay caused due to shortage of cabin crew which CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 8 of 21 was beyond the control of defendant airlines as per the provisions of Carriage by Air Act as it took all necessary care in providing the snacks to the passengers who were traveling.
13. In order to prove his claim, the plaintiff has examined his attorney Sh. Mukesh Sharma as PW-1 who filed his evidence by way of affidavit in terms of the averments made in the plaint. In the cross-examination, PW-1 Sh. Mukesh Sharma stated that he was not present at the time when bag in question was being packed. He further stated that he was not present at the time of purchase of items mentioned in para 5 of his affidavit. He further stated that he was not present at the airport when the flight in question got delayed on 08.02.2015. He did not know whether the cabin crew or the staff inside flight had provided any facility on account of delay. He did not know whether the ground staff of airline has provided any amenities at the airport on account of delay of flight.
14. The aforesaid cross-examination of PW-1 Sh. Mukesh Sharma, the attorney of the plaintiff, shows that he is not aware of any of the facts in respect of the two journeys undertaken by the plaintiff on 18.01.2015 and 08.02.2015 by two different flights of the defendant airlines. He was not present when the bag in question was being packed or when the items as mentioned in para 5 of his affidavit were purchased which as per the case of the plaintiff were contained CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 9 of 21 in the lost baggage. In view of the same, the claim of the plaintiff that his lost bag contained the belongings as mentioned in para no. 5 of the plaint worth Rs. 1,57,000/- is not substantiated.
15. Not only this, there is nothing on record to show that at any point of time, the plaintiff made any such declaration to the defendant airlines declaring the contents of the baggage. Even the document Mark B which is Property Irregularity Report submitted by the plaintiff on 19.01.2015 with the defendant airlines pursuant to loss of baggage shows that there is no specific declaration regarding the contents of the lost baggage nor any special fees had been paid. In the Property Irregularity Report Mark B, the plaintiff has made disclosure of the contents of the lost baggage as of clothes only.
16. It is relevant here to quote necessary guidelines regarding the compensation payable by the airlines in respect of loss of baggage of the passenger.
17. Article 17 of the General Conditions of Carriage for Passengers and Baggage reads as under :-
17.1 (a) .............
(b) The liability for loss, delay or damage to baggage is limited by the Montreal Convention 1999. Such liability is limited to a maximum of 1,131 SDRs per passenger unless the passenger has made, at the time of when checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 10 of 21 destination and has paid a supplementary sum, if so, required and in that case, the carrier shall be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passenger's actual interest in delivery at destination.
(c) the liability for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage of air is limited by Montreal Convention 1999. Such liability is limited to 4,694 SDR unless certain defenses specified by that convention apply.
(d) The liability for destruction, loss, damage or delay with respect to cargo is limited by Montreal Convention 1999. Such liability is limited to 17 SDR per kilogram of cargo.
18. The plaintiff has not led any evidence whatsoever to the effect that he has made any special declaration regarding the contents of the lost baggage or has paid a supplementary charge in respect to the declaration so made. Hence, the plaintiff cannot be held liable to the amount for the lost baggage except as provided by the General Conditions of Carriage for Passengers and Baggage.
19. So far as the claim of the plaintiff regarding compensation of Rs.43,000/- towards purchase of new clothing and belongings is concerned, the plaintiff has again not led any evidence to show that he has incurred the aforesaid amount of Rs.43,000/- in purchase of new cloths and belongings. Moreover, in view of the above General Conditions of Carriage for Passengers and Baggage, the plaintiff cannot be CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 11 of 21 held entitled for the said amount of Rs.43,000/-.
20. As regards the another claim of the plaintiff regarding compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment suffered by him on account of delay of Flight No. AI 113 on 08.02.2015 from Amritsar to Birmingham, the defendant has heavily relied upon the guidelines laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. vs. N. Satchidanand, Civil Appeal No. 4925 of 2011 and contended that as per the statutory provisions and Director General of Civil Aviation (in short "DGCA") directives, it is not liable to pay any compensation for delay which was beyond the control of the airlines and for the delay, it provided snacks to the passengers who were traveling in the said flight.
21. I have gone through the said judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted under the heading Relevant statutory provisions and DGCA directives as under:-
"21. The Carriage of Air Act, 1972 gives effect to the convention for unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air, and amendments thereto, to non-international carriage by air. Section 8 provides that the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette apply the rules contained in the first schedule to the Act and any provision of section 3 or section 5 or section 6 to such carriage by air, not being international carriage by air, as may be specified in the notification, subject, however, to such exceptions, adaptations modifications as may be so specified. Notification no. SO.186E dated 30.03.1973 issued under section 8 CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 12 of 21 of the Act applies to sections 4, 5 and 6 and the rules contained in the second schedule to the Act to all carriages by air (not being an international carriage) and also modified several rules in the second schedule to the Act apart from amending sections 4 and 5 and omitting section 6 of the Act. Chapter III of the Second Schedule to the said Act relates to "liability of the carrier" and clause 19 thereof (amended by Notification No.SO.186(E) dated 30.03.1973 issued under section 8(2) of that Act) is extracted below:-
"19. In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the carrier is not to be liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo."
22. In view of the above DGCA directives, the carrier is not liable for damages occasioned by delay in the carriage and it has to provide certain facilities keeping in view the number of hours of the delay. As per clause 36 of the DGCA directives dated 05.12.2007, low cost carrier has to provide facilitation in terms of tea/water/snacks to the passenger of their delayed flight.
23. In this regard, the defendant has examined DW-1 Sh. Vikas Punj and he deposed in para no. 6 of his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A that defendant airlines is not liable for the delay which was caused due to shortage of cabin crew which was beyond the control of the defendant airlines. The defendant airlines however took necessary care in providing snacks to the passengers who were traveling. He further CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 13 of 21 deposed that as per the Carriage by Air Act, the defendant airlines is not liable for the delay if it is proved that all necessary measures were taken and the delay was caused due to reasons beyond the control of the airlines. He further deposed that food and beverages were provided to the passengers. He has also placed on record the copy of receipt of food and beverages showing the details of the snacks provided to the passengers of the delayed flights including Flight No. AI 113 as Mark A.
24. In his cross-examination, DW-1 Sh. Vijay Punj stated that the baggage lost of the plaintiff was about 23 kg and in cases of such loss, the defendant would generally pay 17 SDR per kg which would have quantified to about 50,000/- approx. He further stated that he has no idea if the reply to the notice Ex. PW1/6 was given or not. However, a mail was sent by their official Mr. K.R.K. Arya. He further stated that the loss of the bag was reported in Amritsar. It was a direct flight from Birmingham to Amritsar. He further stated that they have not placed on record any document showing that they offered any amount payable to the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff is entitled to receive GBP 1530 as per the loss reported. He further denied the suggestion that the plaintiff is entitled to receive sum of Rs. Two lakhs towards mental loss and harassment. He further denied the suggestion that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the cost as well as interest on the above said amount @18% per annum. He stated that in such CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 14 of 21 cases, if they have to pay the amount, the same is @7-8% per annum but it is the discretion of the Court.
25. The above cross-examination of DW-1 Sh. Vijay shows that nothing could be extracted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff to assail his deposition made in his chief examination regarding the liability of the defendant airlines to pay the damages for the delay beyond serving of snacks etc. which has been done in the present case.
26. Although, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that there is no evidence to the effect that the defendant airlines even served any snacks etc. to the plaintiff. He submitted that the document Mark A is a photocopy and is not proved on record.
27. It is true that receipt of food and beverages provided to the passengers Mark A placed on record by DW-1 Vijay Punj is a photocopy, but in the cross-examination of DW-1, no single suggestion has been given to him that the said photocopy of receipt is a forged document or that no such food and beverages as mentioned in the receipt were served to the plaintiff. Not only this, the plaintiff himself did not enter into the witness box to refute the said claim of the defendant. The attorney examined by the plaintiff was not aware as to whether the cabin crew or the staff inside the flight had provided any facility on account of delay. He was also not aware whether the ground staff of airlines has provided any amenities at the CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 15 of 21 airport on account of delay of the flight. In view of the same, the plaintiff cannot be heard saying that the defendant has not provided any snacks etc. to him on account of delay caused by Flight No. AI 113 from Amritsar to Birmingham.
28. The plaintiff has not brought any evidence to the contrary that he is not bound by the terms and conditions regarding travel and travel related compensation as provided under the General Conditions of Carriage and relevant rules of the Carriage by Air Act.
29. It is to be noted that in the written statement, the defendant has offered Rs.1,03,810/- as compensation for the loss of baggage which is equivalent to 1131 SDR as per the Montreal Convention 1999. Thereafter, at the time of final arguments, the defendant submitted the calculation sheet showing the maximum liability of the carrier as per Montreal Convention, 1999 for loss of baggage which is SDR 1131 and the applicability of SDRs amount in present case as per the current conversion rate as follows: -
01 SDR = Rs.111.72/-
SDRs 1131 x 111.72 = Rs. 1,26,357/-
30. The defendant offered the said amount of Rs.1,26,357/- to the plaintiff on 14.01.2025.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussions, as the plaintiff has not been able to prove his entitlement beyond the said CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 16 of 21 amount, the plaintiff is held entitled to recover the said amount of Rs.1,26,357/- from the defendant. Accordingly, Issue no. 1 & 3 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant and Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 4 Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of two different causes of action involved in the present suit ?
32. The onus to prove this issue is on the defendant.
33. The defendant has claimed that present suit is bad for misjoinder of two different causes of action. This contention is based on the premise that the plaintiff has undertaken journeys by two different flights i.e. Flight No. AI 113 and Flight No. AI 114 on two different dates. The defendant has claimed that the first cause of action pertains to loss of baggage which has arisen from travel from Birmingham to Amritsar by Flight No. AI 114 on 18.01.2015 and the cause of action pertaining to delay in the flight has arisen from the travel from Amritsar to Birmingham by Flight No. AI 113 on 08.02.2015. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has submitted that though the defendant airlines is the same, but the flights were different and undertaken on two different dates, therefore the plaintiff could not have joined two causes of action in one suit.
34. I have considered the submissions and do not find CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 17 of 21 any merit in it.
35. It may be noted that the plaintiff has booked the ticket with Air India Ltd. i.e. the defendant airlines for round trip from Birmingham to Amritsar via Delhi by Flight No. AI 114 on 18.01.2015 and from Amritsar to Birmingham by Flight No. AI 113 on 08.02.2015 vide e ticket generated on 02.05.2016 to which there is not dispute. The airlines i.e. Air India Ltd. is the same of which both the flights No. AI 114 and AI 113 belong to. Therefore, only because the plaintiff has traveled on two different flights of the defendant airlines, it cannot be said that the cause of action pertaining to the delay caused by Flight No. AI 113 on 08.02.2015 was a separate and distinct cause of action than the cause of action having arisen pursuant to loss of baggage on the travel on 18.1.2015 by Flight No. AI 114.
36. Further, if the separate suit had been filed against the same defendant airlines in respect of damages for delay by AI 113 on 08.02.2015, it would have led to multiplicity of litigation and wastage of judicial time. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Lala Nahata & Anr. vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1247 that : -
"Thus, when one considers order VII Rule 11 of the Code with particular reference to Clause (d), it is difficult to say that a suit which is bad for misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action, is a suit barred by any law. A procedural objection to the impleading of parties or to the joinder of causes of CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 18 of 21 action or the frame of the suit, could be successfully urged only as a procedural objection which may enable the Court either to permit the continuance of the suit as it is or to direct the plaintiff or plaintiffs to elect to proceed with a part of the suit or even to try the causes of action joined in the suit as separate suits. It is recognized that the court has wide discretionary power to control the conduct of proceedings where there has been a joinder of causes of action or of parties which may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient. In that situation, the court may exercise the power either by ordering separate trials of the claims in respect of two or more causes of action included in the same action or by confining the action to some of the causes of action and excluding the others or by ordering the plaintiff or plaintiffs to elect which cause of action is to be proceeded with or which plaintiff should proceed and which should not or by making such other order as may be expedient. Surely, when the matter rests with the discretion of the court, it could not be postulated that a suit suffering from such a defect is something that is barred by law."
37. In view of the aforesaid discussions, in my considered opinion, it cannot be said that the suit is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of two causes of action as argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant. Hence, this issue is decided against the defendant.
Issue no. 5 Whether defendant can be held liable for the omissions made in the Passenger Advice and Complaint Team (PACT), Civil Aviation Authority?
CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 19 of 21
38. The onus to prove this issue is on the defendant.
39. This issue has been framed because in the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed that he has sent various emails to the defendant regarding loss of baggage but he was not provided with any satisfactory answer. In the plaint, though the plaintiff has not disclosed to whom the said emails were sent, however along with the plaint, the plaintiff has annexed copy of the said emails which were sent to Passenger Advice and Complaint Team (in short "PACT"), Civil Aviation Authority.
40. In the written statement, the defendant has categorically stated that the defendant airlines is not liable for the omissions made by the Passenger Advice and Complaint Team, Civil Aviation Authority since it is not the part of defendant airlines. The plaintiff has not controverted the said contention of the defendant by filing any replication.
41. DW-1 Sh. Vijay Punj has reiterated the said averment in his evidence by way of affidavit in para no. 5 . However, there is not a single cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the said deposition. It is a settled law that if a witness is not examined on a particular deposition, that part of his testimony is deemed to be admitted by the opposite party.
42. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not shown how the defendant is liable for inaction on the part of PACT or that how CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 20 of 21 that PACT is associated with the defendant. During course of final arguments also, no submission was advanced by Counsel for the plaintiff on this issue. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
43. As a sequel to my findings under Issue No. 1 to 3, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in his favour and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,26,357/- with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f 19.01.2015 till filing of the suit. The plaintiff is also held entitled for pendentelite and future interest on the aforesaid decreetal amount @ 6% per annum till realization of the decreetal amount. The plaintiff is also entitled to proportionate cost of the suit.
44. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
45. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 23rd January, 2025 (Balwant Rai Bansal) District Judge-05 (New Delhi District) Patiala House Courts, New Delhi CS No. 327/17 Judgment dt.23.01.2025 Narinder Kalia vs. Air India Ltd. Page 21 of 21