INDIAN AIRLINES LTD Vs. V J PHILIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has arisen out of the order dated 17th of April, 1995 passed by the Kerala State Commission, at Thiruvananthapuram, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner herein against the order passed by the District Forum, Kozhikode, directing the petitioner herein to pay to the complainant Rs. 11,000/-as compensation.

(2.) THE facts in brief are these. The complainant, a Professor in the Department of Botany, University of Calicut, got a confirmed booking from the Indian Airlines for his journey from Calicut to Bombay for onward journey to Los Angeles to attend 1991 World Congress on Cell and Tissue Culture to be held during 15th June to 20th June, 1991 as his paper was selected for presentation at 12 Noon on the 16th June. The complainant was to leave Calicut on 13th June, 1991 by flight No. IC-698 which was scheduled to leave at 11.30 a.m. and land at Bombay at 13.25 hours. He was scheduled to leave Bombay on 14th June at 3.45 a.m. by flight No. AMI 1 and arrive at New York at 15.45 hours. He was expected to take a flight on 14.6.1991 from New York at 19.30 hours to reach Los Angeles at 22.16 hours. The complainant alleged that he reported himself at the check-in counter at the Calicut Airport at 10.30 a.m. and checked his baggage in and got the security pass and went through the security check in preparation for the departure as evidenced by the boarding pass and cabin baggage tag. The complainant admitted in his complaint that due to inclement weather and poor visibility, the plane could not land at Calicut as scheduled, that when the condition improved flight No. IC-698 returned to Calicut and landed at 4.40 p.m. that the passengers including the complainant waiting at the airport from 10 a.m. went up to the plane to board but were turned back when the pilot refused to take off and that the complainant had to wait in the airport till 7.00 p.m. before he could get his ticket cancelled as there was no possibility of connecting the Bombay-New York flight of the 14th at 3.45 a.m. by taking a seat in the postponed IC-698 at 1.00 p.m. on the 14th. The complainant further stated that he got the journey re-booked from Madras via Singapore-Tokyo-Los Angeles which involved an overnight waiting at Singapore airport for the onward journey and 24 hours during the return journeys, incurring heavy expenditure as well as physical and mental agony. The complainant alleged that the cancellation of the flight IC-698 on 13th June, 1991 was largely due to the callous attitude of the pilot and the Indian Airlines causing the complainant heavy financial and academic loss, mental agony and physical agony. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Indian Airlines and especially the pilot and claimed compensation of Rs. 20,000/-in the complaint filed on 14th September, 1991.

(3.) THE District Forum, Kozhikode in its order dated 16th September, 1992 held that there was negligence on the part of the Indian Airlines inasmuch as the FDTL of pilot would have been known to the Indian Airlines in Bangalore itself before the diverted flight IC-697 left Bangalore for Calicut and that the Indian Airlines could not take shelter under the provisions of Non-international Carriage (Passenger and Baggage) Regulations, 1989. The District Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- for mental agony and suffering. Thus a total sum of Rs.11,000/- was awarded to the complainant. The Indian Airlines filed an appeal before the Kerala State Commission and urged that due to FDTL of the pilot even with one hour extension flight could not be operated which was beyond the control of the Indian Airlines and that the flight had to be postponed to comply with safety requirements and to carry out mandatory checks by Engineers and hence scheduled time of departure was fixed at 1300 hours on 14.6.1991. The application of Non-International Carriage (Passengers and Baggage) Regulations, 1989 was reiterated. The State Commission, however, dismissed the appeal after upholding the finding of the District Forum.