National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Darshan Pal Singh & Anr. vs Air India Limited & Anr. on 17 November, 2025
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 31.10.2025
Pronounced on : 17.11.2025
REVISION PETITION NO.68 OF 2024
(Against the Order dated 21.08.2023 in Appeal No. FA/918/2022
of the State Commission Punjab)
1. Shri Darshan Pal Singh, R/o H. No. C-209, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar.
2. Smt. Harjeet Kaur, W/o Shri Darshal Pal Singh, R/o H.No. C-209, East Mohan
Nagar, Amritsar. Petitioners
Versus
1. Air India Ltd. through its Principle Officer/authorized officer, office at Rajasansi
Airport, Amritsar.
2. Air India Ltd., Head Office, New Delhi. Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
For the Petitioners Mr. Darshan Pal Singh, In person
For the Respondents Ms. Diksha Arora, Advocate
ORDER
PER BHARATKUMAR PA ND YA. MEMBER
1. This revision petition, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 03.02.2025, was restored to its original number vide this Commission's order dated 31.10.2025.
2. Complainants/petitioners have filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the State Commission, Punjab and for upholding the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by District Forum, Amritsar.
3. Complainants booked two airways tickets from OP-3 (New Punjab Travels) to travel from Amritsar Airport to IGI Airport, New Delhi via Air India flight AI-454 on 6.12.2018 at 6.50 AM by paying a sum of Rs.10,602/-. From IGI Airport, New Delhi they were having further tickets to travel from New Delhi to Auckland International Airport through China Southern Airlines. On 6.12.2018 when complainants reached Amritsar Airport, they came to know that said Air India flight AI-454 was delayed by five hour and it finally reached New Delhi Airport at 1 PM whereas they had to take Page 1 of 9 their another flight from IGI Airport, New Delhi to Auckland on 6.12.2018 at 12:35 PM. When complainants approached the concerned terminal at IGI Airport, Airlines told that they were late and their flight had already departed from IGI Airport New Delhi and their tickets had been cancelled. They were left with no other option but to purchase new tickets to travel from IGI Airport, New Delhi to Auckland through Thai Airways Internationals on 08.12.2018 by paying a sum of US $1450. Due to delay of flight from Amritsar, complainant had to incur more expenses on purchase of new ticket (US $1410), which OP/respondents are liable to refund to them. Being aggrieved, complainants/petitioners approached the District Forum, Amritsar. District Forum, after considering in detail the relevant facts and after considering the contentions of the parties, passed an order dated 20.09.2022 in favour of the complainants and ordered as under:
u Findings
8. From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was not denial the fact that complainants booked two tickets bearing No. 0982987149426 and 0982987149425 for travelling from Amritsar to Indira Gandhi Airport, New Delhi in flight No. AI-454 on 6.12.2018 and paid consideration of Rs. 10602/- and in this regard complainants have placed on record copy of Air ticket Ex.C-1. The case of the complainants is that they reached at Amritsar Airport on 6.12.2018 but the flight was delayed by five hour and it reached at New Delhi Airport at 1p.m and due to this reason the further flight which the complainant booked from New Delhi to Auckland International Airport has already been departed at 12:35 p.m, copies of tickets from New Delhi to Auckland International airport are Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4. As such the complainant has no other alternative except to purchase new ticket for Auckland International Airport through Thai Airways International by spending a sum of $1450/-. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that due to the delay in reaching at New Delhi Airport the further flight of the complainants had departed and as such the opposite & 2 are liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainant as the complainants have to purchase new Airtickets by spending more amount i.e. $1450/-. On the other hand the only plea of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that the flight in question had flewn in time but due to bad weather condition, it had gone back to Delhi and accordingly, on receiving such information by the Authorities, the passengers including the complainants were duly informed regarding the reason "Aircraft from previous sector delayed due to bad weather condition", as such the delay occurred due to bad weather condition and there was no fault of the Airlines/Airport authorities, But we are not agreed with this plea of the opposite parties as the opposite parties No.1 & 2 have not produced any evidence i.e. Weather forecast report of the date of journey i.e. 6.12.2018 which may prove that on the very date due to bad weather the flight in question was delayed. No doubt the opposite parties have produced some evidence i.e. DGCA rules as well as Log book but the proper evidence i.e. weather forecast report has been withheld by the opposite parties No.1 & 2. So merely on the bald statement of the opposite parties that due to bad weather the flight in question was delayed, it cannot be believed that on the very date the weather was not good to fly the flight on time. So the opposite parties Page 2 of 9 No.1 & 2 are guilty of deficiency in service not Disputes by flying the flight in time and due to this reason the further flight of the complainants had departed and the complainants have to purchase new tickets for further journey by spending more amount i.e. $1450/-. As such the opposite parties No.1 & 2 are liable to make good the loss by making payment of the Air tickets from New Delhi to Auckland International Airport i.e. $ 1410/-.
9. In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to make payment of $1410/- or the amount equivalent in Indian currency alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. As the complainants have suffered a lot due to departure of the flight on 6.10.2018 as they had to wait for two days for the journey from New Delhi to Auckland International Airport by spending another amount i.e. $1450/-,as such the opposite parties No.1 & 2 are also liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- as well as litigation expenses of Rs.10000/- to the complainants. As no case is made out against opposite party No. 3 as they fulfilled their duty by making arrangement of the tickets for the complainants, as such complaint against opposite party No. 3 stands dismissed. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this commission. Announced in Open Commission. "
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, respondents/OP-1&2 (airline) filed an appeal before the State Commission, which stood allowed dismissing the complaint vide its order dated 21.08.2023 extracted hereunder:
(l
12. The foremost contention raised by the appellants/OP No.1 & 2 is that the District Commission has failed to consider and appreciate the fact that the appellants/OPs No. 1 & 2 have duly proved on record by leading cogent evidence that delay in flight was caused due to bad weather, which was beyond their control and as per DGCA rules under clause 1.4, they were not liable to pay any compensation. To determine this point, we have carefully perused the pleadings and evidence on record. A perusal of E-Ticket, Ex. C-1, shows that the complainants booked two tickets for travelling from Amritsar to New Delhi in flight No.AI-454 on 06.12.2018, which was scheduled to depart from Amritsar at 6:50 AM and arrive at New Delhi at 7:65 AM. It is not in dispute that the said flight was delayed and reached late at New Delhi airport due to which the respondents/complainants missed the further flight to Auckland. The stand of the appellants/OPs No. 1 & 2 is that the said delay was caused due to bad weather conditions and respondents/complainants were duly informed by the authorities of Airline at Amritsar in this regard. To support their version, appellants relied upon Log Book, Ex. OP1-2/5. A perusal of said Log book, Ex.OP1-2/5 shows that the appellants have duly mentioned in the Log Book that flight No.AI-454 had gone back to Delhi, due to bad weather in Amritsar "Below Minima". It is also mentioned in the said Log Book that all the passengers have been duly informed about the delay. From the perusal of certificate dated 06.12.2018, Ex. C-2, placed on record by the respondents/complainants, it is proved on record that they were informed about the fact that Air India Flight AI-454 was delayed due to bad weather. The appellants/OPs No. 1 & 2 further relied upon guidelines issued by the DGCA, (Ex.Page 3 of 9
OP1-2/3) regarding facilities to be provided to passengers by airlines due to denied boarding, cancellation of flights and delays in flights. The relevant clauses of the said guidelines are reproduced as under:
"Clause 1.4: The operating airline could not have the obligation to pay compensation in case where the cancellations and delay have been caused by an event(s) of force majeure, extraordinary circumstances(s) beyond the control of the airlines, the impact of which lead to the cancellation/delay of flight(s) and which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken by the airline. Such extraordinary circumstances may in particular, occur due to political instability, natural disaster, civil war, insurrection or riot, flood, explosion, government regulation or order affecting the aircraft, strikes and labour disputes causing cessation, slowdown or interruption of work or any other factors that are beyond the control of the airline.
Clause 1.5: Additionally, airlines would also not be liable to pay any compensation in respect of cancellations and delays clearly attributable to Air Traffic Control (ATC), meteorological conditions, security risks, or any other causes that are beyond the control of the airline but which affect their ability to operate flights on schedule. Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft or several aircraft on a particular day, gives rise to a long delay or delays, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, and which could not be avoided even though the airline concerned had taken all reasonable measures to avoid or overcome of the impact of the relevant factor and, therefore, the delays or cancellations."
According to above said clauses of DGCA guidelines, Ex. OP1-2/3, the operating airline would not have the obligation to pay compensation in cases where the delays have been caused by an event(s) of force majeure i.e. extraordinary circumstance(s) beyond the control of the airline. The appellants proved on record, as discussed above, that the delay in flight caused due to bad weather and complainants were duly informed regarding the said delay. Moreover, the appellants were also provided proper refreshment, free of costs during the waiting period on account of delay of flight. The said fact has not been denied by the respondents/complainants. The complainants were at liberty to get tickets and their tickets cancelled and to get refund of the amount of tickets and could make alternate arrangements for their travel to New Delhi. As such, we are of the considered view that the flight was delayed due to bad weather which is beyond the control of appellants/OPs and there is no fault or deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/OPs. The District Commission has overlooked the above said clauses of DGCA rules/guidelines and failed to consider and appreciate the facts that delay in flight was caused due to bad weather, which is beyond the control of the appellants/OPs. The respondents/complainants have pleaded, in the written arguments, that no arrangements were made by the appellants to adjust the passengers to travel in the alternative fights which depart from Raja Sansi Airport on 06.12.2018 at 9:07 4:23 AM and 10:12 AM It is pertinent to mention that here that this plea has not been taken by the respondents/complainants in the original complaint before the District Commission and appears to be an afterthought. Be that as it may the respondents/complainants have also not been able to establish by leading any cogent evidence, that there was any availability of seats in the said flights. Hence, we find force in the contention raised by the appellants/OPs No. 1 & 2 and are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/OPs No 1 & 2 with regard to alleged delay in flight. The District Commission has wrongly held the appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 deficient in service. As such, the impugned order of the District Commission is liable to be set aside.
13. Sequel to our above discussion, we allow the appeal of the appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 and the impugned order of the District Commission is Page 4 of 9 hereby set aside. The complaint filed by the respondents/complainants is also dismissed.
14. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing the appeal with this Commission. This amount alongwith interest, which accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to the appellants/OP No. 1& 2 by way of demand draft/crossed cheque, after the expiry of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. "
5. We have heard Mr. Darshan Pal Singh, petitioner in person and learned counsel Diksha Arora for the respondents and perused the material available on record. Written synopses of arguments have been filed by the parties.
6. This Commission vide its order dated 03.02.2025, whereby due to absence of petitioner, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution, the bench observed as under:
"Inspite of repeated calls the Petitioner who has been appearing in- person on previous occasions has neither connected online nor is there anyone to represent him in this Petition.
The District Commission had allowed the Complaint holding the airlines responsible and liable and awarded compensation. The Airlines went up in Appeal and the Order of the District Commission was reversed relying on the Condition No. 1.4 and 1.5 of the DGCA Regulations. The ground taken as a defence by the Appellant was that it was on account of bad weather conditions that the flight even though had departed from Delhi, could not land at Amritsar, and consequently returned back.
Further the other flight which was available later on, did not have any seats vacant that could be offered to the Complainants. Consequently it was on account of these force majeure conditions that the aforesaid journey of the petitioners got disturbed which are not attributable to any act of negligence or deficiency on the part of the airlines.
Since no one has appeared to press this Revision Petition we consign it for want of prosecution. "
7. It is the contention of the petitioners that order passed by the State Commission is against law, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. As per petitioners, respondent airline has failed to bring on record any report of the Meteorological department to prove alleged bad weather condition due to which the flight, which had departed from Delhi, had to go back to Delhi and could not land at Amritsar. It is the averment of the petitioners that when three other flights departed from Raja Sansi Airport at 09.07 AM, 09.23 AM and 10.12 AM on 06.12.2018, why no arrangements were made by the airlines to adjust them to travel in the alternative flights. It is further averred by the petitioners that as per the departure log report information provided by the airport authorities, the diverted flight AI-453 was rescheduled to depart from Delhi at 08.30 AM and expected to arrive at Page 5 of 9 I Amritsar airport at about 09.40 AM and then again scheduled to depart from Amritsar airport as AI-454 at 10.10 AM but no such flight arrived at Amritsar on 06.12.2018, due to which complainants were compelled to spend more money and buy tickets once again to visit Auckland.
8. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent airline that petitioners have challenged the well-reasoned, well-founded and judicious order passed by the State Commission. It is the submission of respondent airline that Air India flight was scheduled to reach Amritsar airport from Delhi Airport on 06.12.2018 but upon receipt of meteorological advisories and directives from the competent authorities regarding severe adverse weather conditions, they were compelled to return the flight back to IGI Airport in the interest of safety of the passengers. The delay was thus entirely due to force majeure circumstances beyond the control of the respondent airline. Thus, the delay in operation of flight AI-454 from Amritsar to New Delhi on 06.12.2018 was solely and exclusively attributable to adverse meteorological conditions and directives of ATS (Air Traffic Control), which are wholly beyond the control of the airlines. Hence, respondent airline is not liable to compensate the petitioners in any manner. As per Clause 1.4 and 1.5 of the DGCA Regulations, which have been relied upon by the State Commission, airline shall not be liable to provide compensation in respect of flight cancellations and delays that are clearly and demonstrably attributable to (a) Air Traffic Control (ATC) directives and restrictions, (b) adverse meteorological conditions including but not limited to inclement weather, fog, storms, and low visibility, (c) security threats or risks to aviation safety and (d) any other extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the airline which affect the airline's ability to operate flights in accordance with the published schedule.
9. Respondent airline has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 2000 (1) SCO 66 wherein it is stated that deficiency in service cannot be alleged or established without demonstrating fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be rendered by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The relevant portion of case of Ravneet Singh Bagga (supra) is reproduced below:
...."Deficiency in service cannot be alleged or established without demonstrating fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of Page 6 of 9 performance which is required to be rendered by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving deficiency in service lies squarely upon the person who alleges the same. Complainant has, on facts, been found to have failed to establish any willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the service rendered by the Respondent. Deficiency in service must be carefully distinguished from tortious acts of the Respondent. In the absence of deficiency in service, the aggrieved person may have a remedy under common law to institute a suit for damages, but cannot insist upon the grant of relief under the Consumer Protection Act for alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the Respondent which do not amount to deficiency in service... If upon examination of facts it is found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all reasonable precautions, considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the course of the transaction, and that their action or final decision was taken in good faith and in accordance with established procedures, it cannot be said that there has been any deficiency in service. If the action of the Respondent is found to be bona fide and in good faith, there exists no deficiency of service entitling the aggrieved person to claim relief under the Act. The determination of whether service rendered is deficient must be considered and decided in each case according to the specific facts and circumstances thereof, for which no rigid or universal rule can be formulated. Factors such as inefficiency, lack of due care and diligence, absence of bona fides, rashness, undue haste, negligence, omission, and similar considerations may be relevant in ascertaining whether there exists deficiency in rendering the service. "
10. The prime contentions of the petitioner before us are that other flights did depart from the Amritsar Airport and that why they could not be accommodated in such other flights. Second is that there is no meteorological report placed on record by Air India to establish the alleged entry of bad weather in the Log Book and that the State Commission has relied exclusively on the copy of the Log Book furnished by the respondent which could be self-serving and which is absolutely devoid of any corroboration. As per the complainant many other flights in fact had departed on the same date and therefore the State Commission has erred in reversing the well-reasoned District Forum's order in the absence of cogent evidences. The complainant petitioner has also contended that two flights of Air India at 9.32 AM and 10.10 AM had departed on the same date but still they were not accommodated on that flights. After hearing the petitioner in person and after perusing the written arguments filed by him, while we appreciate the predicament faced by him, we are unable to get impressed by, or accede to, his contentions. There is no doubt that the petitioner has suffered uncertainty, anxiety and financial loss which is occasioned by the delayed flight of Air India, the respondent. However, first and foremost, we are satisfied, as was the case with the State Commission, that the evidence placed by Air India in the form of Log-book which records, in a chronological order, the Air-traffic control directives, and other occurrences, is fully reliable, has not been successfully challenged by the petitioner and therefore must form the foundation in deciding the controversy. We find no merit in the contention that the log-book is Page 7 of 9 self-serving or that the same, without being accompanied by meteorological reports, cannot be relied upon. As a matter of fact, the log book itself records what appears to be the relevant weather and wind-speed etc data. It is clearly recorded in the log-book in entry for 06.18 AM that "it has been informed by ATC, Amritsar telephonically that flight AI-454 has returned to Delhi because of weather conditions which went below minima". It is also further informed that the concerned passengers have been informed. The details of visibility condition at 7 AM, 7.30 AM and 8 AM have also been recorded. Further, as rightly recorded and reasoned by the State Commission, the contentions with regard to the other non-Air India flights having operated from Amritsar airport or with regard to the complainants' not having been offered any alternate seat therein or not having been offered any refreshments etc., such contentions were not raised before the District Forum and hence have rightly not been considered by the State Commission. The State Commission has given two factual findings. First is, that the delay of the flight of the complainants was on account of force majeure in the form of directives of the Amritsar ATS due to which the inbound flight got delayed which subsequently caused delay in outbound flight as well. After quoting clause 1.4 and 1.5 of the DGCA guidelines, the State Commission has noted that the operating airline would not have any obligation of compensating the passengers in the event the flight is delayed by force majeure events or due to ATC instructions. The District Forum has baselessly brushed aside the DGCA guidelines on the premise that DGCA guidelines cannot come to the aid of the operating airline unless the meteorological report is placed on record by the airline. The District Forum held that such weather report has been "withheld" by Air India. We are of the considered opinion that the State Commission has rightly overturned such observation of the District Forum. In our opinion, the evidence on record sufficiently establish that the complainant's flight got delayed due to ATC instructions and due to factors beyond the control of the airline. As a matter of fact, the relevant weather data as relied upon by the ATC also appear to have been recorded in the Log Book and such contemporaneous record could not have been overlooked by the District Forum in the absence of any contrary evidence. We find that the observation of the Apex court as extracted above and as relied upon by the respondent clearly apply to the facts of the case. As observed therein, ". "Deficiency in service cannot be alfeged or established without demonstrating fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance which is required to be rendered by a person in Page 8 of 9 0 pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service". We are of the considered opinion that ATC is entrusted with highly technical aspects of granting and refusing requisite permission of taking off and management of air traffic which involve safety of a large number of passengers. Such instructions, as recorded in the Log Book of the airline casts a duty on the airline to follow the same in view of a duty of ensuring safety of a large number of travelling passengers. It is for this reason that the DGCA guidelines in Clause 1.4 and 1.5 have absolved the airlines from any liability when . the airline has followed the ATC instructions. Obviously, in following such statutory guidelines there cannot be a question of any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance which is required to be rendered by the airline, through the following of such instructions may and in most cases would involve inconvenience to passengers or disruption of their travel plans. In our opinion, therefore, there is no palpable perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error or even any other error in the observations and findings of the State Commission.
11. In view of the above, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
j Sd/-
( A.P. SAHI, J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
( BHARATKUMAR PANDYA) MEMBER aj Page 9 of 9