Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 112 (MP)

Jet Airways (India) Ltd. v. Amit Nimade

2009-01-22

PRAMILA S.KUMAR, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2009
JUDGMENT : S.K. Kulshrcstha , J.:- Thiscase depicts a classic example of the embarrassment of a honeymoon coupleprevented from hoarding the (light despite confirmed reservation well inadvance; resulting in cancellation of all onward reservations. Misbehaviour by the Airlines staff has also been ascribed. 2.The appellants (opposite parties) have assailed the order dated 21-11 -2006passed by the District Forum, Bhopal in Complaint Case No. 114/06. Therespondents after their nuptial wanted to go for honeymoon by means of FlightNo. 9W 3309 for which they had booked the tickets quite in advance. TheAirlines personnel had issued the ticket for flight on 27-2-2004. The ticketbeing a confirmed (OK) ticket, the parties rested assured about the programme and onward reservations. For travelling by this (light, the complainants reached at the Airport an hour in advance, butthey were told by the staff of the Airlines that they would not be carried bythe said aircraft and they also misbehaved and stated that since there was noplace in the aero plane, they cannot be accommodated. The complainants wereperplexed as they had booked onward accommodations and reservations and onaccount of the adamance of the staff of the JetAirlines in not permitting them to go by the said (light for which they werebooked in advance, the entire programme had to becancelled and accommodations reserved had to be cancelled in which asubstantial loss occasioned to the complainants. According to the complainantsthis was clearly a glaring case of deficiency in service. 3.It is not disputed that there were two flights to Delhi from Bhopal, one flightin the morning being flight No. 9W 3309 while the evening flight was No. 9W3307. The appellants took the plea that on 27-2-2004 no seat was available. Thecomplainants had purchased low costs tickets and therefore, it was not possibleto change their manifesto. The ticket was for the evening flight and,therefore, they were requested to come in the evening. 4.Before proceeding further it is necessary to refer to the cases cited. Thefirst contention of the Counsel for the appellants was that the ticket havingbeen purchased from agent, the Airlines could not have been saddled with theliability. Learned Counsel for the respondents has referred to the decision ofthe National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissionin the Air India Vs . Harpreet Singh, III (2003) CPJ 123 (NC). In this decision contention that Air India wasnot liable for the fault of agent was rejected. Learned Counsel for the respondents has referred to the decision ofthe National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissionin the Air India Vs . Harpreet Singh, III (2003) CPJ 123 (NC). In this decision contention that Air India wasnot liable for the fault of agent was rejected. Likewise in the decision of theDelhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,New Delhi in Royal Nepal Airlines Vs. Vishal Arya and another, IV (2006) CPJ 399, in which when theflight was cancelled though passengers with confirmed tickets were to leave bythat flight, the Airlines was held vicariously liable for the acts of itsagents and it was held to be a case of deficiency in service. 5.From the above decisions, it is clear that even where the ticket has beenissued by the agent of the Airlines, the principal is liable for the act of theagent. In his statement the husband has woed that howhe had approached the Airlines in time for checkup and boarding and howunceremoniously he was prevented in the presence of his newly wedded wife. Oncorrespondence with the Airlines, between the father of the bridegroom and theAirlines, the Airlines agreed that the booking was for flight No. 9W 3307, buttheir tickets were issued for flight No. 9W 3309. The General Manager of theAirlines informed that it would not be possible to pin point as to where themistake occurred, but it has not been denied that the mistake did occur. 6.The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Indian Airlines Vs. Renu Gupta and others, 2006 (3) CPR 201 has observed that even if tickets arepurchased from the agent, the principal is required to inform the passengerabout the change in the time of the flight and plea that it was conveyed to theagent for onward communication, is not discharge of the obligation. We havereferred to this decision to show that the travel especially by flight is asensitive matter and requires devoted attention to meticulously maintain therecord so that the passengers are not inconvenienced. 7.The National Commission in Mihonderjit Singh Sethi Vs . Indian Airlines, II(2003) CPJ 205 (NC), where confirmed tickets for flight were issued when therewas no flight on that date, found it to be a gross breach of service andcompensation was awarded. 7.The National Commission in Mihonderjit Singh Sethi Vs . Indian Airlines, II(2003) CPJ 205 (NC), where confirmed tickets for flight were issued when therewas no flight on that date, found it to be a gross breach of service andcompensation was awarded. The passenger in that case had ticket from Leh to Chandigarh on 2-7-1994,but when inquired at the office at Leh , he wasshocked to learn that there was no flight from Leh to Chandigarh on 2-7-1994 and that there was flight to Chandigarh a day earlier, i.e., 1-7-1994. Yet in anothercase, The Manager, Air India Ltd. and another Vs. A. Moideen Kutly and others, 2002 (2) CPR 4 (NC), where thecomplainant was prevented seat in the aircraft despite confirmed ticket fromBombay to Riyadh the Airlines was rightly held guilty of deficiency in servicethough it attributed deficiency to the computer. In the present case,undoubtedly, the respondents were not accommodated in the flight for which theyhad a confirmed ticket and they were advised to come for the evening flight.However, on account of their onward confirmed tickets, it was not possible forthem to change the timing with the result the entire onward journey had to becancelled. The Airlines cannot brush aside or shirk from their liability bymerely attributing it to some mistake or confusion. Even if it is assumed thatmistake occurred at the end of the agent, the Airline being vicariously liable, is under an obligation to pay the compensation. 8.The District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs .50.000/- and cost of Rs . 2,000/- with interest at therate of 12 % p.a. If we visualize the embarrassment of the husband in presenceof his newly wedded wife, where it is alleged that there was misbehaviour as well, it becomes clear that it was not anordinary case for nominal compensation but it indeed to be compensatedadequately to serve as a deterrent. Under these circumstances, we do not findthat the sum of Rs . 50,000/- awarded towardsinconvenience and harassment, is in any way excessive.We are therefore, of the view that the District Forum has rightly held it to bea case of deficiency in service and awarded reasonable compensation. The appealis accordingly dismissed.