State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Indian Airlines Ltd.& Anr. vs Sunil Goyal & Anr. on 16 February, 2010
1.Appeal No.19/2006 1.M/s Indian Airlines Limited,Indira Gandhi International Airport,New Delhi. 2.M/s Indian Airlines Ltd.,Nehru Place,Tonk Road,Jaipur. Appellants V. 1.Sunil Goyal,r/o 1-A,Sangram Colony,C-Scheme,Jaipur. 2.M/s Sanghi Air,35,Sanjay Marg,Hathroi Fort,Jaipur. Respondents 2.Appeal No.85/2006 Sunil Goyal,r/o 1-A,Sangram Colony,C-Scheme,Jaipur. Appellant V. 1.M/s Indian Airlines Limited,Indira Gandhi International Airport,New Delhi. 2.M/s Indian Airlines Ltd.,Nehru Place,Tonk Road,Jaipur. 3.M/s Sanghi Air,35,Sanjay Marg,Hatroi Fort,Jaipur. Respondents Before Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mr.Sashi Kumar Pareek-Member
Shri Anand Kasliwal,counsel for the appellants Indian Airlines Shri D.M.Mathur,counsel for the complainant res.no.1 Shri R.S.Sharma,counsel for res.no.2,M/s Sanghi Air.
Date
of Judgement: 16.02.2010
2
BY
THE STATE COMMISSION:
The abovementioned two appeals have been filed against the exparte order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the District Forum-II,Jaipur in complaint no.846/2005.
Since both have been filed against the same order,therefore,they are being decided by this common judgement.
Appeal No.19/2006 This appeal has been filed by the appellants Indian Airlines which were ops no.1 & 2 before the District Forum-II,Jaipur against the exparte order dated 28.11.05 passed by the District Forum-II,Jaipur in complaint no.846/05 by which the complaint of the complainant res.no.1 was allowed against the appellants as well as against res.no.2 in the manner that both were directed to pay a sum of Rs.4020/- to the complainant res.no.1 with interest @ 9% p.a wef 8.2.96 and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as amount of compensation for mental agony and Rs.2000/- as amount of cost of litigation, interalia holding that though the complainant res.no.1 was having confirmed tickets but he was not allowed to travel in the flight from Delhi to Raipur on 8.2.96 on the pretext that the tickets were not confirmed one.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the impugned order was passed exparte and since it affected the rights of the appellants,therefore, before passing such order, opportunity to put thier case should have been given to the appellants by the District Forum. Hence it was 3 prayed that in the interest of justice,an opportunity to put their case may be given to the appellants and the matter may be remanded back to the District Forum after setting aside the impugned order with the directions to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that it was not a fit case for remand as the appellants have not appeared before the District Forum intentionally as notice,which was sent to him,was returned with the remarks "refused".
Whatever may be the reasons,but the fact is that the impugned order was passed exparte.
It may be stated here that the maxim 'Audi Alteram Partem' (hear the other side) has now been universally acknowledged as a principle of natural justice. The principle of audi alteram partem has been elevated to the status of a constitutional right. This principle requires that no one shall be condemned unheard. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is prevention of miscarriage of justice and hence the observance thereof is the pragmatic requirement of fair play in action. The requirement of natural justice is applicable not only to judicial or quasi judicial orders but also to administrative orders affecting a party prejudicially,unless it is expressly excluded by a law which is otherwise valid.
Thus,looking to the above principles and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the impugned order was passed exparte affecting the rights of the appellants,it is just and proper and in the interest of justice to give one opportunity to the appellants to put their case and to 4 remand the matter to the District Forum,after setting aside the impugned order,but on condition that the appellants would pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as amount of cost to the complainant respondent.
Hence,this appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the following manner:-
(i)that the impugned order dated 28.11.05 passed by the District Forum-II,Jaipur in complaint case no.846/05 is quashed and set aside, but on condition that the appellants would pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as amount of cost to the complainant respondent and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum-II,Jaipur with the directions to decide the same afresh on merits in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.
(ii)that the parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-II,Jaipur on 30.03.2010.
(iii)that the amount deposited by the appellants before the District Forum shall not be given to the appellants or to the complainant respondent till final disposal of the complaint.
(iv)that the appellants are directed to file reply before the District Forum-II,Jaipur on or before 30.03.2010.
2.Appeal No.85/2006 This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant for enhancement of the amount of compensation,but it may be stated here that since while deciding appeal no.19/2006 the impugned 5 order passed by the District Forum-II,Jaipur dated 28.11.05 has been quashed and set aside therefore,this appeal filed by the complainant appellant for enhancement of the amount of compensation has become infructuous one and and it deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
Both the appeals are disposed off accordingly.
Member President