NDLI: M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd. Vs. N. Satchidanand

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Legal Services Authorities Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987:s. 22-B - Permanent Lok Adalat 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 deficiency in service and alleged illegal detention - HELD: Permanent Lok Adalat, Hyderabad had jurisdiction to entertain the application of the passenger. Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat - Exclusion clause in contract - Scope and interpretation of - HELD: Parties 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 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 Adalat is a Special Tribunal and not a court -Interpretation of statutes.ss. 19 and 22-B - Lok Adalat constituted u/s 19 and Permanent Lok Adalat constituted u/s 22-B - Distinction between - Explained - Confusion in nomenclature clarified - HELD: Lok Adalats constituted u/s 19 on a regular or permanent basis, may be referred to as 'Continuous Lok Adalats.Contract:Airlines - e-ticketing - Conditions of carriage by reference - HELD: 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 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 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 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 Permanent Lok Adalat claiming damages for deficiency in service - HELD: Permanent Lok Adalat recorded a finding of fact that delay was due to dense fog/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. Liability of carrier to provide facilitation during delay - HELD: 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 - 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/ 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 -In the instant 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 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 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 - Consumer fora and Permanent Lok Adalats can not award compensation merely because there was inconvenience or hardship or on grounds of 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 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 ATC authorities to allow 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.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 425
Petitioner	M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd.
Respondent	N. Satchidanand
SCR	[2011] 6 S.C.R. 1116
Judgement Date	2011-07-04
Case Number	4925

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd. Vs. N. Satchidanand

Please Log-in to view this content

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Sinha and Another

B.p. Moideen Sevamandir & Anr Vs. A.m. Kutty Hassan

M/s. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Mahabir Prasad Singh Vs. M/s Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd.

State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Jalour Singh & Ors.

K.n. Govindan Kutty Menon Vs. C.d. Shaji

N. Subramanian Vs. M/s Aruna Hotels Ltd. & Anr.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Shri Ganpat Raj

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (noida) Vs. Yunus & Ors.

M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd. Vs. N. Satchidanand

M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd. Vs. N. Satchidanand

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Sinha and Another

B.p. Moideen Sevamandir & Anr Vs. A.m. Kutty Hassan

M/s. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Mahabir Prasad Singh Vs. M/s Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd.

State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Jalour Singh & Ors.

K.n. Govindan Kutty Menon Vs. C.d. Shaji

N. Subramanian Vs. M/s Aruna Hotels Ltd. & Anr.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Shri Ganpat Raj

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (noida) Vs. Yunus & Ors.

M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd. Vs. N. Satchidanand