2011 (7) TMI 1025 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat at Hyderabad did not have territorial jurisdiction? When a flight is delayed due to bad weather, after the boarding of passengers is completed, what are the minimum obligations of an air carrier in particular a low cost carrier, to ensure passenger comfort? When there is delay for reasons beyond the control of the airlines, whether failure to provide periodical lunch/dinner or failure to take back the passengers to the airport lounge (so that they can have freedom to stretch their legs, move around and take food of their choice) can be termed as deficiency in service or negligence? Whether the award of compensation of ₹ 10,000/- with costs calls for interference?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat.
2. Obligations of an air carrier during flight delays.
3. Deficiency in service or negligence due to failure to provide meals or take passengers back to the lounge.
4. Validity of compensation awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat:
The appellant contended that only the courts at Delhi had jurisdiction based on the contract of carriage. However, the Supreme Court held that the exclusive jurisdiction clause was invalid because it ousted the jurisdiction of all other courts, which is against public policy. The Court emphasized that the Permanent Lok Adalat is not a 'court' and thus the exclusive jurisdiction clause does not apply. Additionally, since part of the cause of action arose in Hyderabad, the Permanent Lok Adalat at Hyderabad had jurisdiction to entertain the application.

2. Obligations of an Air Carrier During Flight Delays:
The appellant, a low-cost carrier, argued that they were not liable for delays caused by bad weather and ATC clearance issues. The Supreme Court noted the difference between full-service and low-cost carriers, emphasizing that while low-cost carriers offer minimal services, they must still comply with safety, security, and DGCA regulations. The DGCA guidelines in force at the time required airlines to provide facilitation such as snacks and water during delays. The Court held that facilitation during delays is an implied term of carriage and must be provided even by low-cost carriers.

3. Deficiency in Service or Negligence:
The Court examined whether the failure to provide meals or take passengers back to the lounge constituted a deficiency in service. It was found that the appellant provided sandwiches and water during the delay, meeting the minimum facilitation requirements. The Court noted that the respondent voluntarily chose to remain on board and thus could not claim a deficiency in service for the delay. The appellant's efforts to secure permission to take passengers back to the lounge were noted, and the failure to do so was not deemed inexcusable given the circumstances.

4. Validity of Compensation Awarded:
The Permanent Lok Adalat awarded compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delay. However, the Supreme Court held that the delay was due to reasons beyond the airline's control (bad weather and ATC clearance issues), and there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the airline's part. The Court emphasized that compensation cannot be awarded merely for inconvenience or hardship without proof of deficiency in service or negligence. Consequently, the award of Rs.10,000 as compensation and Rs.2,500 as costs was set aside.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat and the High Court. The application for compensation by the respondent was rejected. The Court also highlighted the need for DGCA and other authorities to ensure that airlines' conditions of carriage are in consonance with Civil Aviation Directives and that passengers are adequately facilitated during delays.