National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pawan Hans Helicopter Limited vs Sri Pasang Dorji Sona on 9 February, 2010
The complainant (respondent no NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL No. 346 OF 2009 (From the Order dated 10.08.2009 of the Arunachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Naharlagun in Complaint Case No. 16 of 2002) Pawan Hans Helicopter Limited Through its Company Secretary Appellant Safdar Jung Airport, New Delhi - 110 003 versus 1. Sri Pasang Dorji Sona S/o Sri P. W. Sona Ganga, Opposite S. P. Office Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh 2. State of Arunachal Pradesh Respondents Through its Chief Secretary State Secretariat, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh 3. Secretary, Civil Aviation Government of Arunachal Pradesh State Secretariat, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh FIRST APPEAL No. 381 OF 2009 (From the Order dated 10.08.2009 of the Arunachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Naharlagun in Complaint Case No. 16 of 2002) 1. State of Arunachal Pradesh Represented by its Chief Secretary Government of Arunachal Pradesh State Secretariat, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh Appellants 2. Secretary, Consumer Aviation Government of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh versus 1. Sri Pasang Dorji Sona S/o Sri P. W. Sona Ganga, Opposite S. P. Office Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh Respondents 2. Pawan Hans Helicopter Service Represented by its Pilot Naharlagun BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA MEMBER For the Appellant in F. A. No. 346 of 2009 & Respondent no. 2 Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate in F. A. No. 381 of 2009 For Respondent no. 1 Mrs. Ginny J. Rautray, Advocate in both F. A.s For the Appellant in Ms Banusri, Advocate F. A. no. 381 of 2009 Dated 9th February 2010 ORDER
ANUPAM DASGUPTA The complainant (respondent no. 1 in both these appeals) filed a complaint (no. AP/CP-16/2002) before the Arunachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Naharlagun (hereafter, the State Commission) alleging deficiency on the part of the State of Arunachal Pradesh (represented through Secretary, Civil Aviation Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh) and Pawan Hans Helicopter Service, Naharlagun (hereafter, Pawan Hans) alleging that on 08.10.2001, the Pawan Hans helicopter flight from Naharlagun to Guwahati departed from Naharlagun at 09.50 a.m. instead of the scheduled departure time of 10.30 a.m., without any intimation to the complainant though he had a confirmed ticket for travelling from Naharlagun to Guwahati on that day. The complainant further alleged that as a result of this deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, he was unable to travel to New Delhi by catching the connecting flight from Guwahati and failed to appear at the office of Alliance On-Line Services Private Limited in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi on 09.10.2001 in pursuance of that companys letter dated 17.09.2001 and thus accept the offer of appointment as Legal Advisor in the said company on monthly remuneration of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant accordingly prayed for award of a sum of Rs.13.90 lakh on various counts, including loss of salary for three years, reimbursement of costs incurred and compensation for tortious liability.
2. After detailed consideration of the matter including documents produced by the parties as well as the evidence brought on record, the State Commission, by its order dated 10.08.2009, directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant, jointly and severally, the sum of Rs.4.60 lakh within two months from the date of the said order, with the stipulation that failure to do so would entitle the complainant to interest on the said amount @ 9% per annum from the date of the order till final payment.
3. Aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission, both Pawan Hans and the State/Government of Arunachal Pradesh have come up in appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for Pawan Hans and Ms. Banusri, learned counsel for the State/Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Mrs. Ginny J. Rautray, Advocate represented the complainant in both these appeals.
5. The main contention of Mr. Kumar on behalf of Pawan Hans is that the State Commission has erred in holding Pawan Hans jointly and severally responsible, along with the State of Arunachal Pradesh to comply with the order of award in favour of the complainant because Pawan Hans operated the said helicopter service from Naharlagun under a specific lease agreement dated 29.06.2000 executed with the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Under clause 3.1 of the said lease agreement, the Lessor (Pawan Hans) agreed to provide one helicopter for exclusive use of the Charterer/Lessee (State of Arunachal Pradesh) and its authorised persons. According to clause 3.2, the Charterer/Lessee (Government of Arunachal Pradesh) had the sole right to requisition scheduled/unscheduled flights as required from time to time and Pawan Hans, as the Lessor, was required to provide helicopter flights in accordance with such requisitions. Further, according to the evidence of the Assistant Director of Civil Aviation, Government of Arunachal Pradesh before the State Commission, it was an admitted position that the State Government had taken the said helicopter on lease from Pawan Hans and it was the State Government which collected fare from the passengers and managed the flight timings and destinations. It was also an admitted position that on 08.10.2001, the helicopter flight departed from Naharlagun at 09.50 a.m. instead of the scheduled time of 10.20 a.m. with the approval of the authorised representative of the Civil Aviation Department of the State Government. Thus, if there was any deficiency in service in operating the helicopter flight on 08.10.2001 that adversely affected the interest of the complainant, the liability therefor could not be fastened on Pawan Hans which operated the flight as an agent of the State Government in accordance with the latters instructions on flight departure timings, etc.
6. Mr. Kumar has also contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the complainant inasmuch as he admittedly reached the helipad at 09.50 a.m. instead of the notified reporting time of 09.30 a.m. - had he reported at the due time, he would not have missed the flight despite its departure being preponed to 09.50 a.m. Secondly, as mentioned in the memorandum of appeal of Pawan Hans, the amount awarded by the State Commission is grossly excessive because the complainant could not have claimed more than Rs. 13,935/- on account of costs of tickets, taxi fare, etc., and the claim on account loss of future income was entirely untenable because the complainant had failed to demonstrate any attempt on his part to, at least immediately thereafter, explain to Alliance Online Private Limited (his prospective employer) the reasons for his inability to join on 09.10.2001 and that yet the said company actually refused the appointment merely on account of his failure to reach the latters office New Delhi on 09.10.2001.
7. Learned counsel for the State of Arunachal Pradesh has not seriously contested the position of inter se responsibility between the State Government and Pawan Hans in respect of determination of the flight timings of the helicopter service in question but has argued on the same lines in respect of the complainants contributory negligence, absence of evidence establishing loss claimed to have been suffered by the complainant and consequent excessiveness of the amount awarded by the State Commission.
8. On consideration of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that advancing the departure time of the helicopter flight on 08.10.2001 by 40 minutes, without prior intimation to all persons who held confirmed tickets for journey from Naharlagun to Guwahati on that date, amounted to deficiency in operating this scheduled helicopter service and the complainant, having purchased a confirmed ticket for the said flight, was definitely affected adversely because of this deficiency. However, given the contents and scope of the lease agreement between the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and Pawan Hans, it would not be legally tenable to fasten any liability for the said deficiency on the latter. This deficiency (on the part of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh) would entitle the complainant to a reasonable compensation. Still, considering the evidence and material brought on record, it would be difficult to conclude that such compensation could be linked in any way to the alleged loss of future income to the complainant. Thus, in our view, a consolidated compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, towards the cost of tickets for the air journeys from Naharlagun to Guwahati and Guwahati to New Delhi and other costs incurred by the complainant as also because of the physical harassment and mental tension caused to him, would meet the ends of justice in the present case.
9. As a result of the discussion above, appeal no. 346/2009 titled, Pawan Hans Helicopter Limited vs Sri Pasang Dorji Sona & Others is allowed and the order of the State Commission, so far as it has also held the said appellant guilty of deficiency in service and called upon it to pay the awarded amount, is hereby set aside. Appeal No. 381/2009 is partly allowed, upholding the finding of the State Commission about deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in this appeal but modifying the order to the extent that the appellant, i.e., State of Arunachal Pradesh alone shall be liable to pay for the said deficiency in service.
We call upon the Department of Civil / Consumer Aviation, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to remit to the complainant a sum of Rs. one lakh within six weeks from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till final payment. The amount deposited by the appellant in appeal no. 346/2009 pursuant to the directions of this Commission is ordered to be refunded to the appellant.
..
[R.C. JAIN, J] ..
[ANUPAM DASGUPTA]