In a couple of cross appeals filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC) against an order dated 16-01-2024 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. (SCDRC) whereby the complaint was partly allowed, a Bench of Justice Saroj Yadav (Presiding Member) and Mr. Shashi Nandkeol (Member) refused to interfere with the impugned order and upheld the same.
The complainant and his wife had booked return air tickets from Delhi to San Francisco and back with Air India Limited by paying Rs. 1,80,408/-. Owing to the complainant’s medical conditions, including cervical spondylosis and sciatica, both tickets were upgraded from economy class to business class upon payment of an additional amount of Rs. 1,23,900/- each. However, during their return journey on 22-09-2022, the complainant was allotted a defective seat in Business Class which was non-reclining.
Despite repeated requests, the cabin crew was unable to rectify the defect or provide an alternative seat stating that other vacant Business Class seats were also defective and that no First Class seats were available. The complainant alleged that he suffered severe discomfort due to which his health also deteriorated. It was asserted that after arrival, he required medical treatment including consultation with an orthopaedic surgeon, bed rest, and physiotherapy. He lodged a representation before the Cabin Secretariat (Directorate of Public Grievances), which was forwarded to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, but no response was received. Aggrieved, he filed a complaint before SCDRC.
By the impugned order, SCDRC noted deficiency in service and directed Air India to pay Rs. 1,69,002/- towards the cost of the business class along with interest at 10% per annum, Rs. 20,00,000/- towards compensation for physical and mental agony, as well as Rs. 20,000/- towards the cost of complaint within 45 days.
The complainant asserted that although Air India had rightly been held guilty of deficiency in service, the compensation awarded was inadequate considering his status as a senior citizen with long-standing medical ailments and the inconvenience suffered during the journey. Whereas, Air India contended that the complaint filed before SCDRC alleging unfair contract was not maintainable.
ALSO READ: Andhra Pradesh High Court: Trial Courts Must List Urgent Injunction Applications Within 10–15 Days
NCDRC stated that Air India’s contention that SCDRC lacked pecuniary jurisdiction could not be entertained and that no such objection was made before the State Commission at the initial stage of hearing. It was stated that Air India could not be permitted to raise the issue in first appeal without specifically pressing the issue at the initial stage.
NCDRC also refused to accept Air India’s argument regarding maintainability on the ground that the allegations did not constitute ‘unfair contract’ within Section 2(46) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It was said that a mere nomenclature or reference to a particular statutory provision in the complaint could not defeat a substantive consumer grievance if the facts disclose a clear case of deficiency in service. NCDRC stated that the allegations squarely fell within the ambit of ‘deficiency in service’ and were rightly entertained by the State Commission.
Further, the Commission said that the compensation awarded under consumer jurisprudence has to be fair, just, and commensurate with the injury suffered. Applying the principle laid down in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65, NCDRC found that the State Commission had struck an appropriate balance in awarding the compensation and said that the same did not warrant interference.
NCDRC held that the impugned order did not suffer from perversity, illegality, or material irregularity and thus, dismissed both cross appeals for being devoid of merit while upholding the impugned order.
