Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 107 (UTT)

NAVARATN S. JAIN v. JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD.

2006-03-24

B.K.TAIMNI, S.N.KAPOOR

body2006
ORDER Mr. Justice S.N. Kapoor, Presiding Member—Feeling aggrieved by a common order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai passed in Complaint Nos. 261/96 and 262/96 dated 18.2.1998 just awarding refund of air fare and Rs. 5,000 as compensation, the appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 2. The complainant/appellant has booked the tickets from Jaipur to Mumbai by Jet Airways, Flight No. 9 W 372 for 22nd October, 1996. The tickets issued to him as well as to his brother were confirmed tickets. He went along with his brother to the airport. The complainant was not allowed to board the plane by Jet Airways on the ground that some members of the Film Industry were being allowed to board and that the flight was full. The complainant thereafter gave notice on 26.10.1996 claiming compensation of Rs. 5.00 lakhs for mental agony, harassment and loss of business. The respondent, Jet Airways expressed its regret twice and were ready to offer one way Air Ticket “Economy” gratis for Jaipur-Mumbai sector as full and final settlement of the claims. Ultimately, the complainant filed the complaint. 3. Jet Airways contested the matter and repudiated the claim on various grounds and alleged that the complainant had arrived late beyond reporting time when the boarding formalities were over. 4. The State Commission rejected the contention of the Jet Airways about late arrival of the complainant at the Airport for it was not reflected in the letter dated 10th December, 1996 and the stand taken by Jet Airways was not credible. The State Commission relied upon the following judgement: 1. K. Senthilrajan v. The Malaysia Airlines and Others, II (1995) CPJ 61. 2. Air India v. R. Nagarajan & Another, II (1997) CPJ 163. 5. The State Commission further took the view that offering of tickets as per passenger handing manual, Clause 2.8.4 and Clause 2.8.5 was not sufficient as in case of denied boarding the passenger would certainly suffer mental agony and humiliation after having spent huge amount for purchasing tickets. 6. Air India v. R. Nagarajan & Another, II (1997) CPJ 163. 5. The State Commission further took the view that offering of tickets as per passenger handing manual, Clause 2.8.4 and Clause 2.8.5 was not sufficient as in case of denied boarding the passenger would certainly suffer mental agony and humiliation after having spent huge amount for purchasing tickets. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel and seeing the material on record, we feel that in so far as deficiency on the part of Jet Airways is concerned, there could not be any dispute that there was deficiency on the part of Jet Airways for giving preference to other passengers and denying the permission to board the plane to these passengers who had purchased the confirmed tickets. The contention that the complainant turned up late itself is belied by the fact that such a plea being the after-thought could not be accepted. 7. The appellant had hired the services of Jet Airways and there could not be any dispute that the appellant is a ‘consumer’. 8. The matter is squarely covered by Indian Airlines Delhi & Others v. S.N. Seth & Others, F.A. No. 495 of 1997 dated 15.4.2002. In that case the ticket was booked from Lucknow to Delhi. In the present case the ticket was booked from Jaipur to Mumbai. In that case it was held that in case of denial of boarding on a confirmed ticket would amount deficiency in service. 9. In the present case, it is apparent that in order to accommodate some film actors boarding was denied to the complainant/appellant. Any person who would go to airport after spending money and having his seat confirmed would certainly be get upset for not only that the entire programme had been fizzled out but it would also cause certainly mental agony. The arrangements made at the destination station would be adversely affected. The appellant claimed that he was to attend a meeting for negotiations to sell his property at Mumbai which he could not do and suffered a loss of about 1.50 crores for the sale was to be affected for a sum of Rs. 15.00 crores but thereafter prospective buyers would be offering about Rs. 13.5 crores. The appellant claimed that he was to attend a meeting for negotiations to sell his property at Mumbai which he could not do and suffered a loss of about 1.50 crores for the sale was to be affected for a sum of Rs. 15.00 crores but thereafter prospective buyers would be offering about Rs. 13.5 crores. The facts mentioned hereinabove clearly show that on account of by giving preference to others the Jet Airways has been deficient in rendering service for denied boarding on a confirmed ticket. We can certainly visualise that in such a circumstance at least for liability for breach of contract would arise in addition to liability otherwise. The respondent being deficient in rendering service by denying boarding would therefore be liable. We do not think that we can award any remote loss the matter. However, it is felt that the compensation of Rs. 5,000 awarded is on a very low side. 10. Seeing this, now we feel that it would be appropriate in the circumstances of this matter to enhance compensation from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 15,000 with interest @ 12% from the date of complaint in addition to ticket fare with cost of Rs. 5,000. The respondent Jet Airways is directed to pay the amount within a period of six weeks by way of Bank Draft to the complainant/appellant. 11. The first appeal stands allowed accordingly. Appeal allowed.