The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, has dismissed cross-appeals filed by a retired judicial officer and Air India Limited, upholding a State Commission order that found the airline liable for deficiency in service after allotting a malfunctioning, non-reclining Business Class seat during a long-haul international flight.
A Bench comprising Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Saroj Yadav, Presiding Member, and Hon’ble Mr. Shashi Nandkeolyar, Member, held that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, had “struck an appropriate balance by directing refund of the Business Class fare component with interest, compensation for physical and mental agony and litigation costs,” and that the relief granted could not be said to be either inadequate or excessive.
The appellant, Justice Rajesh Chandra, a 73-year-old retired judicial officer, and his wife had booked return air tickets from Delhi to San Francisco for Rs. 1,80,408. Owing to the appellant’s medical conditions, including cervical spondylosis and sciatica, both tickets were upgraded from Economy Class to Business Class on payment of an additional Rs. 1,23,900 each, totalling Rs. 2,47,800. However, during the return journey on 22.09.2022 by Flight No. AI-174, the appellant was allotted seat No. 08D in Business Class, which was defective and non-reclining.
Despite repeated requests, the cabin crew expressed inability to rectify the defect or provide an alternative seat, stating that other vacant Business Class seats were also defective and that no First Class seat was available. It was alleged that the appellant suffered severe discomfort during the 15-hour flight, and his health deteriorated after arrival, requiring consultation with an orthopedic surgeon, medication, bed rest and physiotherapy. A representation dated 25.09.2022 filed before the Cabinet Secretariat (Directorate of Public Grievances) and forwarded to the Ministry of Civil Aviation did not elicit any response.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh, seeking compensation of Rs. 1,95,00,000 for physical and mental torture, refund of Rs. 1,69,002 towards the Business Class ticket cost, and Rs. 50,000 towards litigation costs, alleging breach of implied contract, deficiency in service, and an unfair contract within the meaning of Section 2(46) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The State Commission, vide order dated 16.01.2024, partly allowed the complaint, directing Air India to pay Rs. 1,69,002 towards the cost of the Business Class ticket with interest at 10% per annum from the date of deposit, Rs. 20,00,000 towards compensation for physical and mental agony, and Rs. 20,000 towards litigation costs, with a default clause attracting 12% interest in case of non-compliance.
Both parties filed cross-appeals before the NCDRC. Counsel for the appellant argued that the compensation awarded was inadequate given the appellant’s status as a senior citizen with long-standing medical ailments, and that the State Commission had erred in taking the Respondent’s belated Written Statement on record beyond the statutory 45-day limitation period, relying on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., AIRONLINE 2020 SC 300 and other precedents in support of the contention that failure to provide a promised reclining seat without prior disclosure constituted breach of promise and unfair trade practice.
Counsel for the Respondent/Airline countered that the original complaint alleging an unfair contract was not maintainable, as the allegations, even if accepted, constituted only a case of deficiency in service and did not fall within the meaning of ‘unfair contract’ under Section 2(46) of the Act. It was further contended that the aircraft had undergone comprehensive technical inspection prior to operation, that no complaint regarding the alleged malfunctioning seat was recorded in the cabin log or CCIC report, and that the State Commission lacked pecuniary jurisdiction since the consideration paid fell below the statutory threshold under Section 47(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Reliance was placed on Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan and Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004) SCC OnLine SC 338, to argue that the compensation awarded was excessive and disproportionate.
The Commission rejected the objection on pecuniary jurisdiction, holding that since no such plea was pressed before the State Commission at the initial stage, the Respondent could not be permitted to raise the issue for the first time in appeal. It similarly rejected the maintainability objection, observing that “a mere incorrect nomenclature or reference to a particular statutory provision in the complaint cannot defeat a substantive consumer grievance if the facts pleaded disclose a clear case of deficiency in service,” and that the substance of the complaint disclosed a clear case of deficiency in service.
On merits, the Commission found no reason to differ from the State Commission’s finding of deficiency in service, noting that the appellant had upgraded his seat specifically for comfort on account of his medical condition, and that the Respondent, despite contesting the allegation, failed to place cogent and convincing evidence to dislodge the appellant’s version. Relying on Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65, the Commission reiterated that compensation must correlate with actual loss, injury, harassment and suffering, and cannot become a source of unjust enrichment.
Holding that the relief granted by the State Commission was just, equitable and in consonance with settled principles of consumer law, the Commission concluded that the findings did not suffer from perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference. In the result, both Cross Appeals were dismissed and the impugned order dated 16.01.2024 was upheld, with no order as to costs.
For the Appellant: Mr. Ritesh Khare, Advocate
For the Respondent: Dr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate with Ms. Deeksha Arora, Advocate
Case Title: Justice Rajesh Chandra v. Air India Ltd., First Appeal No. 152 of 2024 with First Appeal No. 177 of 2024
![Consumer Court upholds penalty against Uber for abandoning passenger mid-trip [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2024/07/lj_6583_WhatsApp_Image_2024-07-11_at_11.01.32_AM.webp)
