National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Air India Ltd. vs M.K. Abdul Majeed on 26 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: IV(2003)CPJ144(NC)
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. This Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 5th December, 2001 of kerala Sate Commission in Appeal No. 1020/2001 confirming the order of the district Forum, Thiruvananthapuram. The facts which are quite straight-forward are as follows:
The Respondent/Original Complainant is a retired Deputy Director of the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. He had to attend a conference of Space Engineers at Agra scheduled for 8.00 a.m. on 8.4.1999. He booked a ticket in the Air India flight scheduled to take off at 8.40 a.m. on 7.4.1999 from Thiruvanthapuram to Mumbai from where he had to catch a flight to Delhi for his onward journey to Agra. He was given a Boarding Pass and he along with other passengers boarded the flight at 8.00 a.m. on 7.4.1999. But after 3 hours at about 11.00 a.m. the Airport Authorities announced that the flight is cancelled.
2. It is the case of the Complainant/Respondent that his presence at the Conference t Agra is very important to him and since he being a retired Senior Scientist, he himself had to make alternate arrangements, contacting a travel agent and immediately managed to get a ticket to Delhi in the Indian Airlines flight scheduled to take off at 5.20 p.m. on 7.4.1999. He reached Delhi at 11.45 p.m. As Agra is 250 kms. Away and he is to be present at 8.00 a.m. on the next day, he had no other alternative but to take a taxi in the midnight and travel through unfamiliar territory undergoing tremendous amount of stress.
3. His complaint before the District Forum was allowed and he was warded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with interest; Rs. 1300/- as taxi charges and also costs of litigation. When the matter was challenged before the State Commission, explanation given by Air India is that the flight has to be cancelled because of unexpected circumstances. The unexpected circumstances are that the pilot operating the flight from Dubai to Thiruvanthapuram is the one who is required to operate the flight from Thiruvanthapuram to Mumbai. Since the flight from Dubai itself came late, the working hours of the Pilot would have exceeded if he had to operate the flight from Thiruvanthapuram to Mumbai. His services could not be secured and therefore the flight had to be cancelled. It was further argued by the Petitioner that if the Pilot had operated the flight from Thiruvanthapuram to Mumbai, he would have to face disciplinary action for exceeding the time limits. Alternatively, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also argued that the damages are disproportionate. The State Commissioner in a well reasoned (sic) aircraft for three hours before the authorities announced the cancellation of the flight. An unexpected event is something like unanticipated mechanical failure, atmospheric disturbance, serious law and order situation etc. It is only such matters which can be considered to be totally out of control of the concerned authorities.
4. The exact reasons as to whey the flight was not operated would only be known to Air India, but it is reasonable to assume that when the in coming flight from Dubai is delayed, they should have made some alterative arrangements to get another Pilot to operate the flight to Mumbai. Just leaving the passengers to heir own resources and destiny is nothing but callous approach and gross negligence signifying a total unconcern to passengers woes. As correctly observed by the State Commission, the Respondent was not on a holiday, but he was scheduled to attend a conference of the Space Engineers at Agra. We find the order of the State Commission is perfectly correct and there is no reason for us to exercise our Revisional Jurisdiction vested under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act to interfere. The Revision Petition is dismissed.