# M/S INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD v. N. SATCHIDANAND

- **Citation:** [2011] 6 S.C.R. 1116
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-07-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4925 of 2011
- **Bench:** R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-s-interglobe-aviation-ltd-v-n-satchidanand-27809
- **Pages:** 49

## Headnote

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987:
c
s. 22-B - Permanent Lok Ada/at for public utility services
- Jurisdiction of - Air passenger - Ticket purchased at
Hyderabad - Plane boarded at Delhi for Hyderabad - Delay
in flight - After flight landed at Hyderabad, passenger
detained for inquiry - Claim for damages by passenger for
0 deficiency in service and alleged illegal detention - HELD:
Permanent Lok Ada/at, Hyderabad had jurisdiction to
entertain the application of the passenger.
Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Ada/at - Exclusion clause
in contract - Scope and interpretation of - HELD: Parties
E cannot, by agreement, confer jurisdiction on a court which
does not have jurisdiction - Ouster of jurisdiction of some
courts is permissible so long as the court on which exclusive
jurisdiction is conferred had jurisdiction - In the instant case,
as the clause provides that irrespective of the place of cause
F of action, only courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction, the said
clause is invalid in law - Further, a clause ousting the
jurisdiction of a court has to be construed strictly - Permanent
Lok Ada/at is a Special Tribunal and not a court -
G
H
Interpretation of statutes.
ss. 19 and 22-B - Lok Ada/at constituted uls 19 and
Permanent Lok Ada/at constituted u/s 22-B - Distinction
between - Explained - Confusion in nomenclature clarified
- HELD: Lok Adalats constituted uls 19 on a regular or
1116
INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. v. N. SATCHIDANAND 1117
permanent basis, may be referred to as 'Continuous Lok A
Adalats'.
Contract:
Airlines - e-ticketing -
Conditions of carriage by
reference - HELD: Placing the conditions of carriage on the
B
web-site and referring to the same in the e-ticket and making
copies of conditions of carriage available at the airport
counters for inspection is sufficient notice in regard to the
terms of conditions of the carriage and will bind the parties -
The mere fact that a passenger may not read or may not C
demand a copy does not mean that he will not be bound by
the terms of contract of carriage - Notice.
Carriage by Air Act, 1972:
Second Schedule - Clause 19- Low cost carrier- Flight
D
delayed after the passengers boarded the plane -
Cancellation of flight and option given to passengers to
continue the journey by the combined flight in the same
aircraft - Passenger opted to avail the option - Combined
flight also delayed - Application by passenger before
E
Permanent Lok Ada/at claiming damages for deficiency in
service - HELD: Permanent Lok Ada/at recorded a finding
of fact that delay was due to dense fog/bad weather and want
of A TC clearance due to air traffic congestion, which were
beyond the control of the air carrier, and as a consequence,
F
rightly held that the air carrier was not liable for payment of
any compensation for the delay as such.
Liability of carrier to provide facilitation during delay -
HELD: The issue of responsibility for delay in operating the
G
flight is distinct and different from the responsibility of the
airline to offer facilitation to the passengers grounded or
struck on board due to delay - Even if no compensation is
payable for the delay on account of bad weather or other
conditions beyond the control of the air carrier, the airline will
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011] 6 S.C.R.
A be made liable to pay compensation if it fails to offer the
minimum facilitation in the form of refreshment/water/
beverages, as also toilet facilities to the passengers who have
boarded the plane, in the event of delay in departure, as such
failure would amount to deficiency in service -
Jn the instant
B case, though the claimant had to stay in the aircraft for 11
hours, it was because of his voluntary decision to take the later
flight which was a combined flight and the delay in regard to
combined flight was 4 hours 20 minutes - However, the airline
served snacks and water two times - Further there was no
c complaint that toilet facilities were denied - Thus, the facilities
offered by the carrier were

## Text

_Characters 0–39,924 of 94,666. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39924 for what follows._

A
B
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 1116
M/S INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.
v.
N. SATCHIDANAND
(Civil Appeal No. 4925 of 2011)
JULY 4, 2011
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987:
c
s. 22-B - Permanent Lok Ada/at for public utility services
- Jurisdiction of - Air passenger - Ticket purchased at
Hyderabad - Plane boarded at Delhi for Hyderabad - Delay
in flight - After flight landed at Hyderabad, passenger
detained for inquiry - Claim for damages by passenger for
0 deficiency in service and alleged illegal detention - HELD:
Permanent Lok Ada/at, Hyderabad had jurisdiction to
entertain the application of the passenger.
Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Ada/at - Exclusion clause
in contract - Scope and interpretation of - HELD: Parties
E cannot, by agreement, confer jurisdiction on a court which
does not have jurisdiction - Ouster of jurisdiction of some
courts is permissible so long as the court on which exclusive
jurisdiction is conferred had jurisdiction - In the instant case,
as the clause provides that irrespective of the place of cause
F of action, only courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction, the said
clause is invalid in law - Further, a clause ousting the
jurisdiction of a court has to be construed strictly - Permanent
Lok Ada/at is a Special Tribunal and not a court -
G
H
Interpretation of statutes.
ss. 19 and 22-B - Lok Ada/at constituted uls 19 and
Permanent Lok Ada/at constituted u/s 22-B - Distinction
between - Explained - Confusion in nomenclature clarified
- HELD: Lok Adalats constituted uls 19 on a regular or
1116
INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. v. N. SATCHIDANAND 1117
permanent basis, may be referred to as 'Continuous Lok A
Adalats'.
Contract:
Airlines - e-ticketing -
Conditions of carriage by
reference - HELD: Placing the conditions of carriage on the
B
web-site and referring to the same in the e-ticket and making
copies of conditions of carriage available at the airport
counters for inspection is sufficient notice in regard to the
terms of conditions of the carriage and will bind the parties -
The mere fact that a passenger may not read or may not C
demand a copy does not mean that he will not be bound by
the terms of contract of carriage - Notice.
Carriage by Air Act, 1972:
Second Schedule - Clause 19- Low cost carrier- Flight
D
delayed after the passengers boarded the plane -
Cancellation of flight and option given to passengers to
continue the journey by the combined flight in the same
aircraft - Passenger opted to avail the option - Combined
flight also delayed - Application by passenger before
E
Permanent Lok Ada/at claiming damages for deficiency in
service - HELD: Permanent Lok Ada/at recorded a finding
of fact that delay was due to dense fog/bad weather and want
of A TC clearance due to air traffic congestion, which were
beyond the control of the air carrier, and as a consequence,
F
rightly held that the air carrier was not liable for payment of
any compensation for the delay as such.
Liability of carrier to provide facilitation during delay -
HELD: The issue of responsibility for delay in operating the
G
flight is distinct and different from the responsibility of the
airline to offer facilitation to the passengers grounded or
struck on board due to delay - Even if no compensation is
payable for the delay on account of bad weather or other
conditions beyond the control of the air carrier, the airline will
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011] 6 S.C.R.
A be made liable to pay compensation if it fails to offer the
minimum facilitation in the form of refreshment/water/
beverages, as also toilet facilities to the passengers who have
boarded the plane, in the event of delay in departure, as such
failure would amount to deficiency in service -
Jn the instant
B case, though the claimant had to stay in the aircraft for 11
hours, it was because of his voluntary decision to take the later
flight which was a combined flight and the delay in regard to
combined flight was 4 hours 20 minutes - However, the airline
served snacks and water two times - Further there was no
c complaint that toilet facilities were denied - Thus, the facilities
offered by the carrier were reasonable and met the minimum
facilitation as per DGCA guidelines applicable at the relevant
point of time - Thus the airline was not liable to pay any
damages - The order of the Permanent Lok Ada/at affirmed
0 by the High Court awarding damages and costs to the
respondent is set aside and the application of respondent for
compensation is rejected - Consumer fora and Permanent
Lok Adalats can not award compensation merely because
there was inconvenience or hardship or on grounds of
E sympathy, if there is no cause of action for claiming damages
- Compensation - Cause of action.
Low cost carrier - Exclusion clause stipulating that in the
event of flight delay, carrier would not provide any 'meals' -
HELD: Such exclusion clause can apply to passengers who
F have not boarded the flight and who have the freedom to
purchase food in the airport or the freedom to leave - It will
not apply to passengers who are on board and the delay in
the flight taking off. denies them access to food and water -
Suggestion given to Airports and A TC authorities to allow
G passengers, who had boarded the. aircraft, to get back to the
airport lounge when there is delay in flight for a period beyond
three hours.
The respondent, who was booked to travel on a 'low
H cost carrier', namely Indigo flight No.GE-301, from Delhi
INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. v. N. SATCHIDANAND 1119
to Hyderabad on 14.12.2007 scheduled to depart at 6.15
A
a.m., boarded the flight at around 5.45 a.m. Due to dense
fog, bad weather and poor visibility at Delhi airport the
flight was delayed. Around 11.15 a.m. an announcement
was made that flight No. SE-301 was cancelled and the
passengers were given the options: (a) refund of air fare;
B
or (b) credit for future travel on lndiGo; or (c) rebooking
onto an alternative lndiGo flight at no additional cost. The
respondent took the third option to continue the journey
on the combined flight (flight no. SE-305 scheduled to
depart at 12.15 p.m.), by the same aircraft by remaining c
on board. Even the combined flight No.SE 305 could not
take off on schedule, as the ATC did not give the
clearance. Finally, the ATC clearance was given at 4.20
p.m. and the flight departed at 4.37 p.m. and reached
Hyderabad around 7 p.m. The respondent and some 0
other passengers were detained at the Hyderabad Airport
for more than an hour in connection with an enquiry by
the Security Personnel of lndiGo, in regard to a complaint
by the on-board crew that they had threatened and
misbehaved with the air hostesses when the flight was
delayed.
E
The respondent filed a complaint against the
appellant-Airlines at Hyderabad before the Permanent
Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, claiming a
compensation of Rs. 5 lakh for the delay, deficiency in
F
service, failure to provide him medical facilities, as he was
diabetic and· hyper tension patient and for illegal
detention from 7.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. at Hyderabad
Airport. The airline resisted the claim contending, inter
alia, that the Permanent Lok Adalat at Hyderabad had no
G
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as having regard
to the jurisdiction clause in the contract of carriage, only
the courts at Delhi had jurisdiction; that the delay was
because of the factors which were beyond the control of
the airlines, and was not on account of any negligence
H
1120 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A or want of care or deficiency in service on its part; that
the respondent did not disclose his ailments; that the
flight being operated by a low cost carrier, the airline did
not have any provision to serve any food or beverages;
in spite of it, arrangements were made for supply of free
s snacks and water.
The Permanent Lok Adalat, by award dated 18.9.2009
held that it had territorial jurisdiction. It further held that
the delay was due to poor visibility and bad weather
conditions, reasons beyond the control of the appellant,
C but there was laxity and deficiency in service on the part
of the appellant. Consequently, it awarded Rs.10,000/- as
compensr.tion and Rs.2,500/- as costs. The Permanent
Lok Adalat did not examine the issue of wrongful
confinement. The writ petition of the airline was
· D dismissed by the High.
Allowing the appeal filed by the airline, the Court
HELD:
E Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat:
1.1. The dispute was with reference to a contract of
carriage of a passenger from Delhi to Hyderabad. The
ticket was purchased at Hyderabad and, consequently,
F the contract was entered into at Hyderabad. A part of the
cause of action also arose at Hyderabad as the
respondent clearly alleged as one of the causes for
claiming compensation, his illegal detention at the
Hyderabad Airport by the security staff of the appellant
G when the flight landed. Therefore, the courts and tribunals
at Hyderabad had jurisdiction to entertain the claims/
disputes. Section 228 of the Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 (LSA Act) provides that Permanent Lok Adalats
shall be established for exercising jurisdiction in respect
H of one or more public utility services for such areas as
' INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. v. N. SATCHIDANAND 1121
may be specified in the notification. It is not disputed that A
the Permanent Lok Adalat for public utility services,
Hyderabad was constituted for the area of Hyderabad and
transport services by way of carriage of passengers by
air is a public utility service. Therefore, the Permanent Lok
Ada/at at Hyderabad had jurisdiction to entertain the
B
application against the appellant. [para 17) [1143-F-H;
1144-A-B]
1.2. The finding of the High Court that the term relating
to exclusive jurisdiction should be ignored on the ground C
that the passengers would not have read it, cannot be
endorsed. The fact that the conditions of carriage contain
the exclusive jurisdiction clause is not disputed. The etickets do not contain the complete conditions of carriage
but incorporate the conditions of carriage by reference.
The interested passengers can ask the airline for a copy D
of the contract of carriage or visit the web-site and
ascertain the same. Placing the conditions of carriage on
the web-site and referring to the same in the e-ticket and
making copies of conditions of carriage available at the
airport counters for inspection is sufficient notice in
E
~,..
iregard to the terms of conditions of the carriage and will
bind the parties. The mere fact that a passenger may not
read or may not demand a copy does not mean that he
will not be bound by the terms of contract of carriage.
[para 18) [1144-C-G]
F
1.3. It is well settled that the parties cannot by
agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which does not
have jurisdiction; and that only where two or more courts
have the jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding, an
G
agreement that the disputes shall be tried in one of such
courts is not contrary to public policy. The ouster of
jurisdiction of some courts is permissible so long as the
court on which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred, had
jurisdiction. In the instant case, the 'exclusive jurisdiction
H
1122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A clause', contained in the Indigo Conditions of Carriage,
i.e. "All disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the
courts of Delhi only." is made applicable to all contracts
of carriage with the appellant, relating to passengers,
baggage or cargo anywhere in the country, irrespective
B of whether any part of the cause of action arose at Delhi
or not. If the clause had been made to apply only where
a part of cause of action accrued in Delhi, it would have
been valid. But as the clause provides that irrespective
of the place of cause of action, only courts at Delhi would
c have jurisdiction, the said clause is invalid in law, having
regard to the principle laid down in ABC Laminart. The
fact that in the instant case, the place of embarkation
happened to be Delhi, would not validate a clause, which
is invalid. [para 14-15) (1139-G-H; 1140-A-B; 1141-B-G]
D
ABC Laminart v. A.P. Agencies 1989 (2) SCR 1 = 1989
(2) sec 163 - relied on
1.4. Further, a clause ousting the jurisdiction of a
court, which otherwise would have jurisdiction will have
E to be construed strictly. In the instant case, the relevant
clause provides that all disputes shall be subject to the
jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi only. But the respondent
did not approach a "court". The claim was filed by the
respondent before a Permanent Lok Ada/at constituted
F under Chapter VI-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987 ('LSA Act'). The Permanent Lok Ada/at is a Special
Tribunal which is not a 'court' and, as such, the provision
in the contract relating to exclusivity of jurisdiction of
courts at Delhi will not apply. [para 16) [1141-H; 1142-AG B; 1143-D]
1.5. The confusion caused on account of the term
Permanent Lok Ada/at being used to describe two
different types of Lok Adalats. The LSA Act refers to two
types of Lok Adalats needs to be removed. The first is a
H Lok Ada/at constituted u/s. 19 of the Act which has no
INTERGLOBEAVIATION LTD. v. N. SATCHIDANAND1123
. adjudicatory functions or powers and which discharges
A
purely conciliatory functions. The second is a Permanent
Lok Ada/at established u/s. 228(1) of LSA Act to exercise
jurisdiction in respect of public utility services, having
both conciliatory and adjudicatory functions. The word
Permanent Lok Ada/at should refer only to Permanent
B
Lok Adalats establ.ished u/s. 228(1) of the LSA Act and
not to the Lok Adalats constituted u/s. 19. However in
many states, when Lok Adalats are constituted u/s. 19 of
LSA Act for regular or continuous sittings (as contrasted
from periodical sittings), they are also called as c
Permanent Lok Adalats even though they do not have
adjudicatory functions. To avoid confusion, the State
Legal Services Authorities and the High Courts may
ensure that Lok Adalats other than the Permanent Lok
Adalats established u/s. 228(1) of the Act in regard to 0
public utility services, are not described as Permanent
Lok Adalats. One way of avoiding the confusion is to refer
to the Lok Adalats constituted u/s. 19 of the Act on a
regular or permanent basis as 'Continuous Lok Adalats'.
[para 19] [1144-H; 1145-A-G]
UC of India vs. Suresh Kumar - 2011 (4) SCALE 137 -
referred to.
Low cost carrier vis-a-vis full service carrier:
E
2.1. The appellant is a low cost carrier. The
F
1 passengers, who prefer to travel on budget fares, when
opting for low cost carriers know fully well that they
cannot expect from such carriers, the services as!iociated
with full service carriers. But the fact that an airline is ~
low cost carrier does not mean that it can dilute th~ G
requirements relating to safety, security and
\
,maintenance. Nor can it refuse to comply with the·
minimum standards and requirements prescribed by the\
Director General of Civil Aviation. The fact that it offers
only 'no- frills' service does not mean that it can absolve
H
1124
SUPREME COURT REt->ORTS
[2011) 6 S.C.R.
A itself from liability for negligence, want of care or
deficiency in service. [para 20) [1145-H; 1146-A-E]
Liability for damages for delay:
3. Clause 19 of Second Schedule to Carriage by Air
B Act, 1972 makes it clear that the carrier is not liable for
damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of
passengers. Further, the lndiGo Conditions of Carriage
categorically state that the carrier will not be liable to pay
any damages for delays, rescheduling or cancellations
C due to circumstances beyond the control of lndiGo.
There is no ci1spute that in the instant case, the delay was
for reasons beyond the control 01 the carrier. The
guidelines show that the operating air carrier would not
be liable to pay compensation to a passenger, in respect
D of either cancellation or delays attributable to
meteorological conditions (weather/fog etc.,) or air traffic
control directions/instructions, which are beyond the
control of the air carrier. The Permanent Lok Adalat
recorded a finding of fact that delay was due to dense fog/
E bad weather and want of ATC clearance due to air traffic
congestion, which were beyond the control of the air
carrier and as a consequence rightly held that the air
carrier was not liable for payment of any compensation
for the delay as such. This was the position as on the
F date of the incident (14.12.2007) and even subsequently,
after the issue of the guidelines dated 6.8.2010 by the
DGCA. [para 25) [1153-F-H; 1154-A-C]
Liabilit'( to provide facilitation during delay:
G
4.1. The issue of responsibility for delay in operating
the flight is distinct and different from the responsibility
of the airline to offer facilitation to the passengers
grounded or struck on board due to delay. If the
obligation to provide facilitation to the passengers is
H legally recognized, either based on statutory
INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. v. N. SATCHIDANAND 1125
requirements or contractual obligations or recognized
A
conventions, failure to provide the required minimum
facilitation may, depending upon the facts of the case,
amount to either breach of statutory/contractual
obligation, negligence, want of care or deficiency in
service on the part of the operating airline entitling the
B
passengers for compensation. [para 26) [1154-D-F]
4.2. As per the DGCA's guidelines dated 5.12;2007
which were in force on 14.12.2007 (the relevant date),
there was obligation to provide facilitation to passengers
on the part of the carrier. Clause 35 provided, if the flight
C
is delayed, after boarding, appropriate facilitation has to
be given by the Airlines on board. Clause 36 provides that
the Airlines, even low cost carriers, had to provide
facilitation in terms of tea/water/snacks to the passengers
of their delayed flights. [para 27] [1154-G-H]
D
4.3. Facilitation of passengers who are stranded after
boarding the aircraft on account of delays is an implied
term of carriage of passengers, accepted as an
international practice, apart from being a requirement to
be fulfilled under DGCA's directives. Such facilitation
which relates to the health, survival and safety of the
passengers, is to be provided, not only by full service
carriers, but all airlines including low cost carriers. This
obligation has nothing to do with the issue of liability or
non-liability to pay compensation to the passengers for
E
F
the delay. Even if no compensation is payable for the
delay on account of bad weather or other conditions
beyond the control of the air carrier, the airline will be
made liable to pay compensation if it fails to offer the
minimum .facilitation in the form of refreshment/water/
G
beverages, as also toilet facilities to the passengers who
have boarded the plane, in the event of delay in departure,
as such failure would amount to deficiency in service. At
the relevant point of time (14th December 2007), in the
H
1126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A event of delay, passengers on-board were to be provided
by the air carriers, including low cost carriers, facilitation
by way of snacks/water/tea apart from access to toilet.
[para 28] [1155-A-F]
Ravennet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Duth Airlines
B 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 320 = 2000 (1) SCC 66 - referred to.
Effect of Indigo Conditions of Carriage on the liability for
facilitation:
4.4. The exclusion clause no doubt states that in the
C event of flight delay, lndiGo would not provide any
"meals". But it can apply to passengers who have not
boarded the flight and who have the freedom to purchase
food in the airport or the freedom to leave. It will not
apply to passengers who are on board and the delay in
D the flight taking off, denies them access to food and
water. In the extra-ordinary situation where the
passengers are physically under the complete care and
control of the airline, as it hapi:-ens when they have
boarded the aircraft and have no freedom to alight from
E the aircraft, the duty of the airlines to protect and care for
them, and provide for basic facilitation including the care
for the health , welfare and safety would prevail over any
term of the contract excluding any facilitation (except
where the carrier itself cannot access food due to
F emergency situations), and the exclusion clause in
question stood superseded. (The DGCA directives in
force from 15.8.2010 clearly provide that passengers shall
be offered free of cost meals and refreshment in relation
to the waiting time). This is with reference to the
G passengers on board, in delayed flights which have not
taken off. Subject to any directives of DGCA to the
contrary, the exclusion clause will be binding in normal
conditions, that is, during the flight period, once the flight
has taken off, or where the passenger has not boarded.
H [para 31] [1157-H; 1158-A-F]
INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. v. N. SATCHIDANAND 1127
What was the period of delay:
A
5. The respondent's complaint is about the
inordinate delay of eleven hours after boarding. It is true
that the respondent was confined to the aircraft for nearly
eleven hours on account of the delay. But, the delay in a
8
sense was not of 11 hours (from 5.35 a.m. to 4.37 p.m).
The respondent first took flight No.GE-301 which was
scheduled to depart at 6.15 a.m. and boarded that flight
at 5.45 a.m. When that flight was unduly delayed on
account of the bad weather around 11.15 a.m. the said
flight was cancelled and was combined with subsequent C
flight No.6E-305 due to depart at 12.15 p.m. If the
respondent continued to sit in the aircraft, it was because
of his voluntary decision to take the later flight which was
a combination of flight No.6E-301 and 6E-305 which was
. due to depart at 12.15 p.m. (subject to ATC clearance) and
D
that was delayed till 4.37 p.m. Therefore, the delay in
regard to the combined flight which was due for
departure at 12.15 p.m. was four hours and twenty
minutes. The stay of eleven hours in the aircraft was a
voluntary decision of the respondent, as he could have
E
left the aircraft much earlier around 11.00 a.m. by either
opting to obtain refund of the air fare or by opting for
credit for future travel or by opting for an lndiGo flight on
a subsequent day. Having opted to remain on board the
respondent could not make a grievance of the delay, or
F
no'1-availability of food of his choice or medicines. [para
33] [1159-F-H; 1160-A-B]
Whether the airline failed to provide facilitation to
respondent?
6.1. When flight No.GE-301 was cancelled and
combined with the subsequent flight No.6E-305, the onboard passengers including the respondent who opted
G
to continue in the flight were offered snacks (sandwiches)
and water free of cost, around 12 noon. As the combined
H
1128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A flight (No.6E-305) was also delayed, a second free offer
of sandwiches and water was made around 3 p.m. But
the second time, the respondent was offered a chicken
sandwich and as he was a vegetarian, he was offered
biscuits and water, instead. In the absence of prior
8 intimation about the preference in regard to food and in
emergency conditions, the non-offer of a vegetarian
sandwich in the second round of free snacks cannot be
considered to be a violation of basic facilitation. In fact,
the appellant being a low cost carrier, on the relevant
date, there was also no occasion for indicating such
C preferences. It is not the case of the respondent that toilet
facilities were denied or not made available. In the
circumstances, the appellant being a low cost carrier, the
facilitations offered by it, were reasonable and also met
the minimum facilitation as per the DGCA guidelines
D applicable at the relevant point of time. [para 34-35] [1160C-H; 1161-A-B]
6.2. The respondent had not notified the Airlines that
he was a patient suffering from an ailment which required
E medication or treatment. There is nothing to show that the
respondent requested for any treatment or medicines
during the period when he was on board. [para 36] [1161C]
7. As regards the respondent's detention at
F Hyderabad, neither the Permanent Lok Adalat, nor the
High Court has recorded any finding of wrongful or
vexatious detention or harassment. Therefore, the
question of awarding compensation under this head also
does not arise. [para 37] [1162-B-C]
G
H
Whether the appellant is liable to pay damages:
8.1. The Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly held that
when there was an inordinate delay after completion of
INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. v. N. SATCHIDANAND 1129
boarding, the carrier should take steps to secure the
A
permission of the Airport and ATC authorities to take back
the passengers, who had already boarded, to the airport
lounge when there was an inordinate delay. But the
observation that failure to take the passengers to the
airport lounge was unexcusable and unbecoming
B
behaviour on the part of the airlines was not warranted
on the facts and circumstances of the case. The admitted
position in the case is that the airlines made efforts in that
behalf, but permission was not granted to it to send back
the passengers to the airport lounge, in view of the heavy c
congestion in the airport. The airport and the ATC
authorities are not parties to the proceedings. If
permission was not granted for the passengers to be
taken to the airport lounge, the airlines cannot be found
fault with. [para 38] [1162-D-H;· 1163-A]
8.2. Where the delay is for reasons beyond the
control of the airlines, as in the instant case, due to bad
weather and want of clearance from ATC, in the absence
D
of proof of negligence or deficiency in service the airlines
cannot be held responsible for the inconvenience caused
E
to the passengers on account of the delay. The
justification for damages given by the High Court that as
the appellant did not operate lndiGo flight No.6E-301 as
per schedule and caused inconvenience to a passenger
who was a diabetic patient, he was entitled to nominal
F
damages for deficiency in service, does not find support
either on facts or in law. The order of the Permanent Lok
Adalat affirmed by the High Court awarding damages and
costs to the respondent is set aside and the application
of respondent for compensation is rejected. [para 39 to G
42] [1163-B-G; 1164-G]
9.1. Consumer fora and Permanent Lok Adalats can
not award compensation merely because there was
inconvenience or hardship or on grounds of sympathy.
H
1130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A What is relevant is whether there was any cause of action
for claiming damages, that is whether there was any
deficiency in service or whether there was any
negligence in providing facilitation. If the delay was due
to reasons beyond the control of the airline and if the
s airline and its crew have acted reasonably and in a bona
fide manner, the carrier cannot be made liable to pay
damages even if there has been some inconvenience or
hardship to a passenger on account of the delay. [para
40) [1163-E-G]
c
9.2. If a flight had remained on tarmac without taking
off, for eleven hours, after boarding was completed, it
was because the Airport and ATC authorities refused to
send the passengers to the Airport lounge. Normally if the
aircraft has remained on tarmac for more than two or
D three hours after boarding is closed, without the flight
taking off, the passengers should be permitted to get
back to the airport lounge to get facilitation service from
the airline. Whenever there is such delay beyond a
reasonable period (say three hours), the passengers on
E board should be permitted to get back to the airport
lounge. If for any unforeseen reason, the passengers are
required to be on board for a period beyond three hours
or more, without the flight taking off, appropriate
provision for food and water should be made, apart from
F providing access to the toilets. Congestion in the airport
on account of the delayed and cancelled flights can not
be a ground to prevent the passengers on board from
returning to the airport lounge. While the guidelines
issued by the DGCA cover the responsibilities of the
G airlines, DGCA and other concerned authorities should
also specify the responsibilities of the airport and the ATC
authorities to ensure that no aircraft remains on tarmac
for more than three hours after the boarding is closed and
that if it has to so remain, then permit the passengers to
H
INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. v. N. SATCHIDANAND 1131
return to the airport lounge from the aircraft, till the aircraft A
· is ready to take off. DGCA shall also ensure that the
conditions of carriage of all airlines in India are in
consonance with its Civil Aviation Directives. [para 41]
[1163-H; 1164-A-F]
Case Law Reference:
B
1989 (2) SCR 1
2011 (4) SCALE 137
relied on
referred to
1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 320 referred to
para 14
para 19
para 29
C
CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4925 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.12.2009 of the High
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ
D
Petition No. 27754 of 2009.
V. Giri, (A.C.) Mohd. Sadique T.A. Raj Shekhar, Liz
Mathew, Amit Kumar Srivastava, R.V. Karneshwaran for the
appearing parties.·
E .·
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard.
2. The appellant, an aviation company operating an air
F
carrier under the name and style of lndiGo Airlines has filed
this appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court dated 31.12.2009 dismissing its writ petition
challenging the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public
Utility Services, Hyderabad, dated 18.9.2009 awarding
G
Rs.10,000 as compensation and Rs.2,000 as costs to the
respondent herein.
Facts found to be not in dispute
3. The respondent and eight others were booked to travel
H
1132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A on Indigo flight No.6E-301 from Delhi to Hyderabad on
14.12.2007 scheduled to depart at 6.15 a.m. The respondent
reached the airport, obtained a boarding pass and boarded the
flight at around 5.45 a.m. Due to dense fog, bad weather and
poor visibility at Delhi airport the flight was delayed. An
8 announcement was made that the flight was unable to take off
due to dense fog and poor visibility, and that the flight will take
off as and when a clearance was given by ATC. As appellant
was a 'low cost carrier' neither snacks nor beverages were
offered. However sandwiches were offered for sale and the
C respondent purchased a sandwich by paying Rs.100. Around
· 11.15 a.m. an announcement was made that flight No. 6E-301
was cancelled and the passengers were given the following
options: (a) refund of air fare; or (b) credit for future travel on
lndiGo; or (c) rebooking onto an alternative lndiGo flight at no
additional cost. As an extension of the third option, willing
D passengers were permitted to undertake the journey on the next
flight, by combining the said flight (Flight No.6E-301) with the
next flight (Flight No. 6E-305) which was scheduled to depart
at 12.15 p.m., subject to improvement in weather conditions
and clearance by Air Traffic Control ('ATC' for short).
E
4. As the same aircraft was to be used for the combined
flight, several of the passengers including respondent took the
third option, and opted to continue the journey on the combined
flight, by the same aircraft by remaining on board. Several other
F passengers, who opted for refund of their airfare or obtaining
credit for future travel or for re-booking on subsequent flights
of their choice, left the aircraft.
5. In view of the cancellation of flight No.6E-301 and the
DGCA regulations prescribing maximum duty hours for the
G crew, the crew of 6E-301 was replaced by the fresh crew of
flight No.6E-305. Even the combined flight No.6E 305 could not
take off on schedule as the ATC did not give the clearance.
Several announcements were made about the delay on
account of inclement weather conditions and the piling up of
H
INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. v. N. SATCHIDANAND 1133
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
, delayed flights queuing for take off. In the mean.while on
A
account of cancellation of flights and delaying of several flights,
lhe airport was getting overcrowded and congested. As a
consequence, the airport authorities advised the flights which
had completed boarding but had not taken off for want of A TC
clearance, not to send back the boarded passengers to the
B
airport lounge, but retain them in the aircraft itself, as the airport
was not capable of handling the additional load. The
respondent and some other passengers, who had opted for
travel in the combined later flight by the same aircraft, protested
about the delay and demanded lunch/refreshments as they were
held up inside the aircraft. Each of the affected passengers,
including the respondent, was provided with a sandwich and
water, free of cost around noon time. A further offer of free
sandwiches was made around 3.00 p.m. However as
vegetarian sandwiches were exhausted, the second offer by the
0
crew was of chicken sandwiches. Respondent and others, who
declined chicken sandwiches, were offered biscuits and water
c·
·free of cost. Finally the ATC clearance was given at 4.20 p.m.
and the flight departed at 4.37 p.m. and reached Hyderabad
around 7 p.m.
6. When the flight reached Hyderabad, the respondent and
some other passengers were detained at the Hyderabad
Airport for more than an hour in connection with an enquiry by
the Security Personnel of lndiGo, in regard to a complaint by
E
the on-board crew that they had threatened and misbehaved
F
with the air hostesses when the flight was delayed.
The complaint and the response
7. The respondent filed a complaint against the appellant
before the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services,
G
claiming a compensation of Rs.Five lakhs for the delay and
deficiency in service resulting in physical discomfort, mental
agony ~nd inconvenience. The respondent listed the following
reasons for the claim:
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
(a)
confinement to the aircraft seat from 5.45 a.m.
(time of boarding) to 4.37 p.m. (time of departure
of flight) for nearly 11 hours leading to cramps in
his legs;
(b)
failure to provide breakfast, lunch, tea in the aircraft
in spite of the fact that the respondent was detained
in the aircraft for eleven hours (from 5.45 a.m. to
4.37 p.m.) before departure;
(c)
failure to provide access to medical facilities to the
respondent who was a diabetic and hyper tension
patient;
(d)
illegal detention from 7 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. at
Hyderabad airport upon a false complaint by the
crew of the aircraft;
(e)
inability to celebrate his birthday on 15.12.2007, on
account of the traumatic experience on the earlier
day, apart from being prevented from attending
court on 14.12.2007 and being prevented from
attending office till 19.12.2007.
8. The respondent contended that the airlines failed to
take necessary care of the passengers and failed to act
reasonably by not resorting to the remedial steps in regard to
following matters:
(a)
In view of the foggy conditions and inclement
weather, instead of issuing boarding passes, the
passengers should have been asked to wait in the
airport lounge itself until the weather/visibility
improved, so that they could have had breakfast
and lunch in the airport restaurant without being
confined to the aircraft for a total period of eleven
hours;
(b)
When the flight could not take off due to bad weather
INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. v. N. SATCHIDANAND 1135
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
for a long time (nearly eleven hours), the appellant
A
ought to have brought back the passengers from the
aircraft to the terminal so that they could have
avoided confinement to their narrow seats in the
aircraft and at the same time had access to
breakfast and lunch, proper toilet facilities, if
B
necessary, medicines;
(c)
Though the appellant was a low cost carrier with no
provision for serving food, in the extraordinary
circumstances of detention of the passengers in the c
aircraft for 11 hours (before departure), it should
have provided breakfast and lunch of their choice
and beverages, free of cost, on board.
(d)
The respondent being a diabetic and hyper-tension
patient was required to have timely meals and
D
medicines, which he was denied. Though a free
sandwich was provided around 12.30 p.m., at
around 3.00 p.m. when second round of frees
snacks were offered, he was offered a chicken
sandwich which he could not accept being a
E
vegetarian. Offering a few biscuits with water as an
alternative was wholly insufficient.
(e)
Since the toilets were being constantly used by the
cooped up pas~engers in the aircraft for several
F
hours, and as there was no proper air circulation,
the air was unbreathable apart from the foul smell
from the toilet leading to nausea and dizziness.
9. The appellant resisted the claim of the respondent on
the following grounds :
G
(a)
The Permanent Lok Adalat at Hyderabad had no
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Having
regard to the jurisdiction clause in the contract of
carriage, only the courts at Delhi had jurisdiction.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
Any complaint or case had tr. be filed only at Delhi.
(b)
The delay was for reasons beyond the control of the
airlines and its employees, due to dense fog and
bad weather. As the visibility dropped to less than
around 15 meters, flights could not take off and the
consequential congestion at the airport led to further
delay. Even after the fog had cleared, the Air Traffic
Control clearance for take off was given only at 4.20
p.m. The delay was not on account of any
negligence or want of care or deficiency in service
on the part of the airlines, but due to bad weather
conditions and want of ATC clearance, which were
beyond the control of the airlines and therefore it
was not liable to pay any compensation.
(c)
The respondent was given the option of either rebooking in a different flight, or receive the refund of
the airfare, or continue the journey in the same
aircraft by taking the next combined flight to depart
as per ATC clearance. The respondent opted for
continuing the journey in the combined flight and he
stayed in the aircraft. If he had opted for re-booking
or refund, he could have left the aircraft by 12.00
Noon.
(d)
The respondent did not disclose his alleged
physical condition (about diabetes and hyper
tension) either at the time of purchasing the ticket
or during the period he was on board. If he was
suffering from any ailment he ought to have given
advance notice or ought to have accepted the offer
for rebooking or refund and left the aircraft as was
done by several other passengers.
(e)
Being a flight operated by a low cost carrier, the
appellant did not have any provision to serve any
food or beverages. Only sandwiches and some
INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. v. N. SATCHIDANAND 1137
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
other snacks were available on sale basis. In spite
A
of it, in view of the delay, arrangements were made
for supply of free sandwiches and water, once
around 12.30 p.m. and again around 3.00 p.m. The
toilets were also functional all through the period.
Thus _there was no deficiency in "Service or want of
B
care on its part.
10. In regard to the detention of respondent at Hyderabad
Airport, the appellant submitted that the respondent and some
of his fellow passengers became agitated and furious when the
C
announcement regarding cancellation of flight No.6E 301 was
made and started abusing and misbehaving with the crew using
extremely vulgar and threatening language; that the respondent
also threw the biscuits offered, at one of the crew members;
and that a complaint was made against the respondent and
other members by the crew and consequently when the flight
D
reached Hyderabad there was an inquiry by appellant's
Assistant Manager (Security).