No obligation on airlines to escort the passenger to the boarding gate

Case covered:

The Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata & Anr. … Appellants

Versus

Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. …Respondents

Facts of the case:

The appellants, who are representatives of two different branches of an aviation company operating low-cost air carrier under the name and style of M/s. Indigo Airlines have filed these appeals, taking exception to the judgment and order dated 12.9.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘the National Commission’) in Revision Petition Nos. 1520­1521/2018. Thereby, the revision petitions filed by the appellants came to be rejected and the judgment and order dated 22.8.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (for short, ‘the District Forum’) in Case No. CC­35/2017, as modified by the Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala (for short, ‘the State Commission’) vide judgment and order dated 22.2.2018 in Appeal Case Nos. A.53.2017 and A.61.2017, directing the appellants to pay to the respondents a compensation of Rs.51,432/­ (Rupees fifty one thousand four hundred thirty-two only) within two months failing which to pay the same along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, came to be confirmed. Additionally, the cost of Rs.20,000/­ (Rupees twenty thousand only) for filing the revision petitions against such meager compensation amount was also imposed.

Download the copy:

Observation of court:

As a matter of fact, the coordinate Bench of the National Commission in the case of The Manager, Southern Region (supra) has had occasion to observe that it would not be appropriate to cast an obligation on any airlines to delay the departure of an aircraft beyond the scheduled time of the departure and to await late arrival of any passenger, whosoever he may be, howsoever highly or lowly placed. Even in that case, the complainant had failed to present himself at the departure lounge in time and there was no kind of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the airlines. A similar situation obtains in the present case. The appellant­Airlines cannot be blamed for the non­reporting of the respondents at the boarding gate before 08:20 a.m. and in any case, before 08:58 a.m., when the boarding gate was finally closed.

That takes us to the suggestions given by the learned Amicus Curiae for issuing directions to all the airlines to abide by the uniform practice. We refrain from doing so and leave that to the competent authority (the DGCA) to consider the same and after interacting with all the stakeholders, take appropriate decision and issue instructions in that behalf, as may be advised. The competent authority (the DGCA) may do so within a reasonable time, preferably within six months from receipt of a copy of this judgment or any representation in that behalf.

Judgment:

In view of the above, the impugned judgments and orders passed by the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission cannot be sustained and the same is, therefore, set aside and resultantly, the complaint filed by the respondents stands dismissed. However, as assured by the appellants, no recovery of the amount deposited by them as a condition precedent for issuance of the notice, which has already been withdrawn by the respondents, need be made from the respondents.

We place on record our word of appreciation for the able assistance given by the learned Amicus Curiae – Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel.

The appeals are accordingly allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.