{"id":256372,"date":"2011-07-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-04-27T04:19:55","modified_gmt":"2018-04-26T22:49:55","slug":"ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: R.V.Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik<\/div>\n
                                                         1\n\n\n\n                                                                                  Reportable\n\n                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4925 OF 2011\n\n                     [Arising out of SLP [C] No.21108 of 2010]\n\n\n\n\n\nInterGlobe Aviation Ltd.                                             ... Appellant\n\n\n                                              vs.\n\n\nN.Satchidanand                                                       ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       Leave granted. Heard.\n<\/p>\n
\n
2.     The   appellant,   an   aviation   company   operating   an   air   carrier   under   the <\/p>\n
name   and   style   of  IndiGo   Airlines  has   filed   this   appeal   aggrieved   by   the <\/p>\n
judgment  of  the   Andhra   Pradesh   High   Court   dated   31.12.2009   dismissing   its <\/p>\n
writ petition challenging the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public <\/p>\n
Utility   Services,   Hyderabad,   dated   18.9.2009   awarding   Rs.10,000   as <\/p>\n
compensation and Rs.2,000 as costs to the respondent herein. <\/p>\n
                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
Facts found to be not in dispute<\/p>\n
3.     The respondent and eight others were booked to travel on Indigo flight <\/p>\n
No.6E-301 from Delhi to Hyderabad on 14.12.2007 scheduled to depart at 6.15 <\/p>\n
a.m. The respondent reached the airport, obtained a boarding pass and boarded <\/p>\n
the flight at around 5.45 a.m. Due to dense fog, bad weather and poor visibility <\/p>\n
at   Delhi   airport   the   flight   was   delayed.   An   announcement   was   made   that   the <\/p>\n
flight was unable to take off due to dense fog and poor visibility, and that the <\/p>\n
flight will take off as and when a clearance  was given by ATC. As appellant <\/p>\n
was  a  `low   cost  carrier’  neither   snacks  nor  beverages   were   offered.  However <\/p>\n
sandwiches were offered for sale and the respondent purchased a sandwich by <\/p>\n
paying Rs.100. Around 11.15 a.m. an announcement was made that flight No. <\/p>\n
6E-301 was cancelled and the passengers were given the following options: (a) <\/p>\n
refund of air fare; or (b) credit for future travel on IndiGo; or   (c) rebooking <\/p>\n
onto an alternative IndiGo flight at no additional cost. As an extension of the <\/p>\n
third option, willing passengers were permitted to undertake the journey on the <\/p>\n
next flight, by combining the said flight (Flight No.6E-301) with the next flight <\/p>\n
(Flight   No.   6E-305)   which   was   scheduled   to   depart   at   12.15   p.m.,   subject   to <\/p>\n
improvement   in   weather   conditions   and   clearance   by   Air   Traffic   Control <\/p>\n
(`ATC’ for short).\n<\/p>\n
\n                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
4.     As the same aircraft was to be used for the combined flight, several of the <\/p>\n
passengers including respondent took the third option, and opted to continue the <\/p>\n
journey   on   the   combined   flight,   by   the   same   aircraft   by   remaining   on   board. <\/p>\n
Several   other   passengers,   who   opted   for   refund   of   their   airfare   or   obtaining <\/p>\n
credit for future travel or for re-booking on subsequent flights of their choice, <\/p>\n
left the aircraft.\n<\/p>\n
\n
5.     In   view   of   the   cancellation   of   flight   No.6E-301   and   the   DGCA <\/p>\n
regulations prescribing maximum duty hours for the crew, the crew of 6E-301 <\/p>\n
was replaced by the fresh crew of flight No.6E-305. Even the combined flight <\/p>\n
No.6E   305   could   not   take   off   on   schedule   as   the   ATC   did   not   give   the <\/p>\n
clearance.   Several   announcements   were   made   about   the   delay   on   account   of <\/p>\n
inclement weather conditions and the piling up of delayed flights queuing for <\/p>\n
take off. In the meanwhile on account of cancellation of flights and delaying of <\/p>\n
several   flights,   the   airport   was   getting   overcrowded   and   congested.   As   a <\/p>\n
consequence,   the   airport   authorities   advised   the   flights   which   had   completed <\/p>\n
boarding but had not taken off for want of ATC clearance, not to send back the <\/p>\n
boarded passengers to the airport lounge, but retain them in the aircraft itself, as <\/p>\n
the airport was not capable of handling the additional load. The respondent and <\/p>\n
some other passengers, who had opted for travel in the combined later flight by <\/p>\n
the same aircraft, protested about the delay and demanded lunch\/refreshments <\/p>\n
                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
as   they   were   held   up   inside   the   aircraft.   Each   of   the   affected   passengers, <\/p>\n
including the respondent, was provided with a sandwich and water, free of cost <\/p>\n
around   noon  time.   A   further  offer   of  free   sandwiches   was  made   around  3.00 <\/p>\n
p.m.  However   as   vegetarian   sandwiches   were   exhausted,   the   second   offer   by <\/p>\n
the   crew   was   of   chicken   sandwiches.   Respondent   and   others,   who   declined <\/p>\n
chicken   sandwiches,   were   offered   biscuits   and   water   free   of  cost.   Finally   the <\/p>\n
ATC clearance was given at 4.20 p.m. and the flight departed at 4.37 p.m. and <\/p>\n
reached Hyderabad around 7 p.m.<\/p>\n
6.     When   the   flight   reached   Hyderabad,   the   respondent   and   some   other <\/p>\n
passengers   were   detained   at  the   Hyderabad   Airport   for   more   than   an  hour  in <\/p>\n
connection with an enquiry by the Security Personnel of IndiGo, in regard to a <\/p>\n
complaint by the on-board crew that they had threatened and misbehaved with <\/p>\n
the air hostesses when the flight was delayed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
The complaint and the response<\/p>\n
7.     The   respondent   filed   a   complaint   against   the   appellant   before   the <\/p>\n
Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, claiming a compensation of <\/p>\n
Rs.Five   lakhs   for   the   delay   and   deficiency   in   service   resulting   in   physical <\/p>\n
discomfort,   mental   agony   and   inconvenience.   The   respondent   listed   the <\/p>\n
following reasons for the claim:\n<\/p>\n
\n                                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
         (a)       confinement to the aircraft seat from 5.45 a.m. (time of boarding) to <\/p>\n
                   4.37 p.m. (time of departure of flight) for nearly 11 hours leading to <\/p>\n
                   cramps in his legs;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
         (b)       failure   to   provide   breakfast,   lunch,   tea   in  the   aircraft   in   spite   of  the <\/p>\n
                   fact that the respondent was detained in the aircraft for eleven hours <\/p>\n
                   (from 5.45 a.m. to 4.37 p.m.) before departure;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
         (c)       failure  to provide  access  to medical  facilities  to the respondent  who <\/p>\n
                   was a diabetic and hyper tension patient;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
         (d)       illegal detention from 7 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. at Hyderabad airport upon a <\/p>\n
                   false complaint by the crew of the aircraft;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
         (e)       inability   to   celebrate   his   birthday   on   15.12.2007,   on   account   of   the <\/p>\n
                   traumatic   experience   on   the   earlier   day,   apart   from   being   prevented <\/p>\n
                   from   attending   court   on   14.12.2007   and   being   prevented   from <\/p>\n
                   attending office till 19.12.2007.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
8.              The respondent contended that the airlines failed to take necessary care <\/p>\n
of the passengers and failed to act reasonably by not resorting to the remedial <\/p>\n
steps in regard to following matters:\n<\/p>\n
\n
         (a)       In   view   of   the   foggy   conditions   and   inclement   weather,   instead   of <\/p>\n
                   issuing   boarding   passes,   the   passengers   should   have   been   asked   to <\/p>\n
                   wait in the airport lounge itself until the weather\/visibility improved, <\/p>\n
                   so   that   they   could   have   had   breakfast   and   lunch   in   the   airport <\/p>\n
                   restaurant without being confined to the aircraft for a total period of <\/p>\n
                   eleven hours;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (b)        When the flight could not take off due to bad weather for a long time <\/p>\n
                 (nearly  eleven hours), the appellant  ought to have brought  back the <\/p>\n
                 passengers from the aircraft to the terminal so that they could have <\/p>\n
                 avoided confinement to their narrow  seats in the aircraft  and at the <\/p>\n
                 same time had access to breakfast and lunch, proper toilet facilities, if <\/p>\n
                 necessary, medicines;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (c)        Though   the   appellant   was   a   low   cost   carrier   with   no   provision   for <\/p>\n
                 serving food, in the extraordinary circumstances of detention of the <\/p>\n
                 passengers   in   the   aircraft   for   11   hours   (before   departure),   it   should <\/p>\n
                 have provided breakfast and lunch of their choice and beverages, free <\/p>\n
                 of cost, on board.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (d)        The   respondent   being   a   diabetic   and   hyper-tension   patient   was <\/p>\n
                 required to have timely meals and medicines, which he was denied. <\/p>\n
                 Though a free sandwich was provided around 12.30 p.m., at around <\/p>\n
                 3.00 p.m. when second  round of frees snacks were offered, he  was <\/p>\n
                 offered   a   chicken   sandwich   which   he   could   not   accept   being   a <\/p>\n
                 vegetarian. Offering a few biscuits with water as an alternative was <\/p>\n
                 wholly insufficient.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (e)        Since   the   toilets   were   being   constantly   used   by   the   cooped   up <\/p>\n
                 passengers   in   the   aircraft   for   several   hours,   and   as   there   was   no <\/p>\n
                 proper   air   circulation,   the   air   was   unbreathable   apart   from   the   foul <\/p>\n
                 smell from the toilet leading to nausea and dizziness.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
9.             The   appellant   resisted   the   claim   of   the   respondent   on   the   following <\/p>\n
grounds :\n<\/p>\n
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
(a)    The   Permanent   Lok   Adalat   at   Hyderabad   had   no   jurisdiction   to <\/p>\n
       entertain   the   complaint.   Having   regard   to   the   jurisdiction   clause   in <\/p>\n
       the contract of carriage, only the courts at Delhi had jurisdiction. Any <\/p>\n
       complaint or case had to be filed only at Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
\n
(b)    The delay was for reasons beyond the control of the airlines and its <\/p>\n
       employees,   due   to   dense   fog   and   bad   weather.   As   the   visibility <\/p>\n
       dropped to less than around 15 meters, flights could not take off and <\/p>\n
       the consequential congestion at the airport led to further delay. Even <\/p>\n
       after the fog had cleared, the Air Traffic Control clearance for take <\/p>\n
       off was given only at 4.20 p.m. The delay was not on account of any <\/p>\n
       negligence or want of care or deficiency in service on the part of the <\/p>\n
       airlines,   but   due   to   bad   weather   conditions   and   want   of   ATC <\/p>\n
       clearance, which were beyond the control of the airlines and therefore <\/p>\n
       it was not liable to pay any compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\n
(c)    The   respondent   was   given   the   option   of   either   re-booking   in   a <\/p>\n
       different  flight, or receive  the refund of the airfare, or continue the <\/p>\n
       journey   in   the   same   aircraft   by   taking   the   next   combined   flight   to <\/p>\n
       depart as per ATC clearance. The respondent opted for continuing the <\/p>\n
       journey in the combined flight and he stayed in the aircraft. If he had <\/p>\n
       opted   for   re-booking   or   refund,   he   could   have   left   the   aircraft   by <\/p>\n
       12.00 Noon.\n<\/p>\n
\n
(d)    The respondent did not disclose his alleged physical condition (about <\/p>\n
       diabetes and hyper tension) either at the time of purchasing the ticket <\/p>\n
       or during the period he was on board. If he was suffering from any <\/p>\n
                                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
                  ailment   he   ought   to   have   given   advance   notice   or   ought   to   have <\/p>\n
                  accepted the offer for rebooking or refund and left the aircraft as was <\/p>\n
                  done by several other passengers.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       (e)        Being   a   flight   operated   by   a   low   cost   carrier,   the   appellant   did   not <\/p>\n
                  have any provision to serve any food or beverages. Only sandwiches <\/p>\n
                  and some other snacks were available on sale basis. In spite of it, in <\/p>\n
                  view   of   the   delay,   arrangements   were   made   for   supply   of   free <\/p>\n
                  sandwiches and water, once around 12.30 p.m. and again around 3.00 <\/p>\n
                  p.m.   The   toilets   were   also   functional   all   through   the   period.   Thus <\/p>\n
                  there was no deficiency in service or want of care on its part. <\/p>\n
10.           In   regard   to   the   detention   of   respondent   at   Hyderabad   Airport,   the <\/p>\n
appellant   submitted   that   the   respondent   and   some   of   his   fellow   passengers <\/p>\n
became agitated and furious when the announcement regarding cancellation of <\/p>\n
flight No.6E 301 was made and started abusing and misbehaving with the crew <\/p>\n
using extremely vulgar and threatening language; that the respondent also threw <\/p>\n
the biscuits offered, at one of the crew members; and that a complaint was made <\/p>\n
against the respondent and other members by the crew and consequently when <\/p>\n
the   flight   reached   Hyderabad   there   was   an   inquiry   by   appellant’s   Assistant <\/p>\n
Manager   (Security).   It   was   further   submitted   that   during   enquiry,   the   crew <\/p>\n
decided   not   to   press   the   matter   in   the   interests   of   customer   relations   and   to <\/p>\n
avoid   unnecessary   complications;   and   therefore,   even   though   CISF   personnel <\/p>\n
advised that a written complaint may be given in regard to the misbehaviour, a <\/p>\n
                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
written complaint was not given and the respondent and others were permitted <\/p>\n
to   leave.   The   allegation   of   wrongful   confinement   and   harassment   was   thus <\/p>\n
denied.\n<\/p>\n
\n
11.     The   Permanent   Lok   Adalat,   by   award   dated   18.9.2009   held   that   it   had <\/p>\n
territorial jurisdiction.  It further held that the delay was due to poor visibility <\/p>\n
and   bad   weather   conditions,   reasons   beyond   the   control   of   the   appellant.   It <\/p>\n
further held: (a) though the claim of the respondent that he was confined in the <\/p>\n
aircraft   without   providing   food   was   not   established,   and   though   the   airlines <\/p>\n
being a low cost carrier, was not bound to provide any food to its passengers, as <\/p>\n
the   passengers   were   detained   in   the   aircraft   for   long,   not   providing   food   of <\/p>\n
passenger’s   choice   caused   inconvenience   and   suffering   to   the   passengers;   (b) <\/p>\n
though   there   was   no   evidence   to   show   that   the   respondent   had   notified   the <\/p>\n
airlines   that   he   was   a   diabetic   and   it   was   not   possible   to   hold   the   airlines <\/p>\n
responsible   in   any   manner,   the   fact   that   he   suffered   on   account   of   being   a <\/p>\n
diabetic could not be ignored; and (c) though the relevant rules might not have <\/p>\n
permitted the passengers who had boarded the aircraft to return to the airport <\/p>\n
lounge, in view of the unduly long delay,  the rules should have been relaxed <\/p>\n
and the airlines was under a moral duty to take the passengers to the lounge and <\/p>\n
keep them there till the flight was permitted to take off and failure to do so was <\/p>\n
inexcusable.   The   Permanent   Lok   Adalat   did   not   examine   the   grievance <\/p>\n
                                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
regarding wrongful confinement at the Hyderabad airport for an hour and half <\/p>\n
stating that criminal offences were not within its purview. The Permanent Lok <\/p>\n
Adalat  held  that there  was  laxity  and  deficiency  in  service  on the  part  of the <\/p>\n
appellant and consequently awarded Rs.10000 as compensation and Rs.2500 as <\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n
\n
12.        The   said   decision   of   the   Permanent   Lok   Adalat   was   challenged   by   the <\/p>\n
appellant by filing a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by <\/p>\n
the   impugned   judgment   dated   31.12.2009.   In   regard   to   jurisdiction   the   High <\/p>\n
Court held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\n
           “Most of the passengers, who took tickets or most of the passengers who buy <\/p>\n
           tickets   in   Indigo   counters   seldom,   read   the   terms   and   conditions   regarding <\/p>\n
           jurisdiction of Court in case of disputes. In such a situation,  the jurisdiction <\/p>\n
           aspects   of   the   contract   between   IndiGo   and   passenger   must   receive   liberal <\/p>\n
           approach by the Courts or else the consumerism would be at peril.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The High Court did not interfere with the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat <\/p>\n
on the following reasoning:\n<\/p>\n
\n
           “Whatever be the reason and whatever be the justification, for Indigo in not <\/p>\n
           operating Flight 6E-301 as per schedule, it certainly caused inconvenience to <\/p>\n
           the   passenger   who   is   admittedly   a   diabetic   patient.   Therefore,   he   should   at <\/p>\n
           least   receive  nominal  damages  for  the  deficiency  of  service.  This  was   what <\/p>\n
           was   precisely   done   by   learned   Permanent   Lok   Adalat   in   an   unexceptional <\/p>\n
           manner.   We   do   not   see   any   strong   reason   to   exercise   our   extraordinary <\/p>\n
           jurisdiction to find fault with the same.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
13.        The said order is under challenge in this appeal by special leave. On the <\/p>\n
contentions urged the following questions arise for consideration:<\/p>\n
                                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
(i)      Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat at Hyderabad did not have territorial <\/p>\n
jurisdiction?\n<\/p>\n
\n
(ii)     When   a   flight   is   delayed   due   to   bad   weather,   after   the   boarding   of <\/p>\n
passengers is completed, what are the minimum obligations of an air carrier in <\/p>\n
particular a low cost carrier, to ensure passenger comfort?<\/p>\n
(iii)    When   there   is   delay   for   reasons   beyond   the   control   of   the   airlines, <\/p>\n
whether   failure   to   provide   periodical   lunch\/dinner   or   failure   to   take   back   the <\/p>\n
passengers to the airport lounge (so that they can have freedom to stretch their <\/p>\n
legs, move around and take food of their choice) can be termed as deficiency in <\/p>\n
service or negligence?\n<\/p>\n
\n
(iv)     Whether  the award of compensation  of Rs.10,000\/-  with costs calls for <\/p>\n
interference?\n<\/p>\n
\n
Re: Question (i) : Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat<\/p>\n
14.      The Indigo Conditions of Carriage, containing the standard terms which <\/p>\n
govern the contract between the parties provide as follows: “All disputes shall <\/p>\n
be   subject   to   the   jurisdiction   of   the   courts   of   Delhi   only.”   The   appellant <\/p>\n
contends   that   the   ticket   related   to   the   travel   from   Delhi   to   Hyderabad,   the <\/p>\n
complaint   was   in   regard   to   delay   at   Delhi   and   therefore   the   cause   of   action <\/p>\n
arose at Delhi; and that as the contract provided that courts at Delhi only will <\/p>\n
have   jurisdiction,   the   jurisdiction   of   other   courts   were   ousted.   Reliance   was <\/p>\n
placed on ABC Laminart v. A.P. Agencies<\/a> [1989 (2) SCC 163] where this court <\/p>\n
held:\n<\/p>\n
\n
         “So   long   as   the   parties   to   a   contract   do   not   oust   the   jurisdiction   of   all   the <\/p>\n
         Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction to decide the cause of action <\/p>\n
                                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
       under the law it cannot be said that the parties have by their contract ousted <\/p>\n
       the   jurisdiction   of   the   Court.   If   under   the   law   several   Courts   would   have <\/p>\n
       jurisdiction and the parties have agreed to submit to one of these jurisdictions <\/p>\n
       and not to other or others of them it cannot be said that there is total ouster of <\/p>\n
       jurisdiction. In other words, where the parties to a contract agreed to submit <\/p>\n
       the disputes arising from it to a particular jurisdiction which would otherwise <\/p>\n
       also be a proper jurisdiction under the law, their agreement to the extent they <\/p>\n
       agreed not to submit to other jurisdictions cannot be said to be void as against <\/p>\n
       public policy.  If on the other hand, the jurisdiction they agreed to submit to <\/p>\n
       would not otherwise be proper jurisdiction to decide disputes arising out of the <\/p>\n
       contract it must be declared void being against public policy.<\/p>\n
       ……From   the   foregoing   decisions   it   can   be   reasonably   deduced   that   where <\/p>\n
       such an ouster clause occurs, it is pertinent to see whether there is ouster of <\/p>\n
       jurisdiction   of   other   Courts.   When   the   clause   is   clear,   unambiguous   and <\/p>\n
       specific   accepted   notions   of   contract   would   bind   the   parties   and   unless   the <\/p>\n
       absence of ad idem can be shown, the other Courts should avoid exercising <\/p>\n
       jurisdiction,   As   regards   construction   of   the   ouster   clause   when   words   like <\/p>\n
       ‘alone’,   ‘only,   ‘exclusive’   and   the   like   have   been   used   there   may   be   no <\/p>\n
       difficulty. Even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim ‘expressio <\/p>\n
       unius est exclusio alterius’ -expression of one is the exclusion of another may <\/p>\n
       be applied. What is an appropriate case shall depend on the facts of the case. <\/p>\n
       In such a case mention of one thing may imply exclusion of another. When <\/p>\n
       certain jurisdiction is specified in a contract an intention to exclude all others <\/p>\n
       from   its   operation   may   in   such   cases   be   inferred.   It   has   therefore   to   be <\/p>\n
       properly construed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
15.    The `exclusive jurisdiction clause’, as noticed above is a standard clause <\/p>\n
that is made applicable to all contracts of carriage with the appellant, relating to <\/p>\n
passengers, baggage or cargo anywhere in the country, irrespective of whether <\/p>\n
any part of the cause of action arose at Delhi or not. If for example a passenger <\/p>\n
purchases a ticket to travel from Mumbai to Kolkata, or Chennai to Hyderabad, <\/p>\n
which involved travel without touching Delhi and if such ticket was purchased <\/p>\n
outside Delhi, obviously the Delhi courts will not have territorial jurisdiction as <\/p>\n
no part of the cause of action arises in Delhi. As per the principle laid down in <\/p>\n
                                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
ABC   Laminart,   any   clause   which   ousts   the   jurisdiction   of   all   courts   having <\/p>\n
jurisdiction   and   conferring   jurisdiction   on   a   court   not   otherwise   having <\/p>\n
jurisdiction would be invalid. It is now well settled that the parties cannot by <\/p>\n
agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which does not have jurisdiction; and <\/p>\n
that   only   where   two   or   more   courts   have   the   jurisdiction   to   try   a   suit   or <\/p>\n
proceeding, an agreement that the disputes shall be tried in one of such courts is <\/p>\n
not   contrary   to   public   policy.   The   ouster   of   jurisdiction   of   some   courts   is <\/p>\n
permissible  so  long  as  the  court   on which  exclusive  jurisdiction   is conferred, <\/p>\n
had   jurisdiction.   If   the   clause   had   been   made   to   apply   only   where   a   part   of <\/p>\n
cause  of action accrued in Delhi, it would have been valid. But as the clause <\/p>\n
provides that irrespective of the place of cause of action, only courts at Delhi <\/p>\n
would have jurisdiction, the said clause is invalid in law, having regard to the <\/p>\n
principle  laid down in  ABC  Laminart. The fact  that in this  case,  the  place of <\/p>\n
embarkation   happened   to   be   Delhi,   would   not   validate   a   clause,   which   is <\/p>\n
invalid.\n<\/p>\n
\n
16.     There is another reason for holding the said clause to be invalid. A clause <\/p>\n
ousting   jurisdiction   of   a   court,   which   otherwise   would   have   jurisdiction   will <\/p>\n
have to be construed strictly. In this case, we are concerned with a clause which <\/p>\n
provides   that   all   disputes   shall   be   subject   to   the   jurisdiction   of   the  courts   at  <\/p>\n
Delhi  only.   But   in   this   case,   the   respondent   did   not   approach   a   “court”.   The <\/p>\n
                                                  14<\/span><\/p>\n
claim was filed by the respondent before a  Permanent Lok Adalat  constituted <\/p>\n
under Chapter VI-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (`LSA Act’ for <\/p>\n
short). Section 22C provides that any party to a dispute may, before the dispute  <\/p>\n
is brought before any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat  <\/p>\n
for settlement of the dispute. When the statement, additional statements, replies <\/p>\n
etc.,   are   filed   in   an   application   filed   before   it,   the   Permanent   Lok   Adalat   is <\/p>\n
required   to   conduct  conciliation   proceedings   between   the   parties,   taking   into  <\/p>\n
account, the circumstances of the dispute and assist the parties in their attempt  <\/p>\n
to   reach   an   amicable  settlement   of   the   dispute.   If  the   parties   fail   to  reach   an <\/p>\n
agreement,   the  Permanent   Lok   Adalat  is   required   to   decide   the   dispute.   The <\/p>\n
Permanent   Lok   Adalats  are   authorized   to   deal   with   and   decide   only   disputes <\/p>\n
relating to service rendered by notified public utility services provided the value <\/p>\n
does  not  exceed  Rupees  Ten  Lakhs  and the  dispute  does  not relate   to a  non-<\/p>\n
compoundable  offence.  Section  22D  provides   that   the  Permanent  Lok  Adalat  <\/p>\n
shall,   while   conducting   the   conciliation   proceedings   or   deciding   a   dispute   on <\/p>\n
merit   under   the   LSA   Act,   be   guided   by   the   principles   of   natural   justice, <\/p>\n
objectivity,   fair   play,   equity   and   other   principles   of   justice   and   shall   not   be <\/p>\n
bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act<\/a>, 1872. <\/p>\n
Section  22E<\/a> provides that every award of the  Permanent Lok Adalat  shall be <\/p>\n
final and binding on the parties and could be transmitted to a civil court having <\/p>\n
local   jurisdiction   for   execution.   Each   and   every   provision   of  Chapter  VIA   of <\/p>\n
                                                  15<\/span><\/p>\n
LSA   Act   emphasizes   that   is   the  Permanent   Lok   Adalat  is   a   Special   Tribunal <\/p>\n
which is not a `court’.   As noted above, Section 22C of the LSA Act provides <\/p>\n
for an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat in regard to a dispute before the  <\/p>\n
dispute is brought before any court and that after an application is made to the <\/p>\n
Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to the application shall invoke the jurisdiction <\/p>\n
of any court in the same dispute, thereby making it clear that Permanent Lok <\/p>\n
Adalat is distinct and different from a court. The nature of proceedings before <\/p>\n
the Permanent Lok Adalat is initially a conciliation which is non-adjudicatory <\/p>\n
in   nature.   Only   if   the   parties   fail   to   reach   an   agreement   by   conciliation,   the <\/p>\n
Permanent   Lok   Adalat   mutates   into   an   adjudicatory   body,   by   deciding   the <\/p>\n
dispute.  In short the procedure  adopted by  Permanent  Lok  Adalats  is what is <\/p>\n
popularly   known   as   `CON-ARB’   (that   is   “conciliation   cum   arbitration”)   in <\/p>\n
United States, where the parties can approach a neutral third party or authority <\/p>\n
for conciliation and if the conciliation fails, authorize such neutral third party or <\/p>\n
authority to decide the dispute itself, such decision being final and binding. The <\/p>\n
concept of `CON-ARB’ before a Permanent Lok Adalat is completely different <\/p>\n
from  the   concept   of   judicial   adjudication   by   courts   governed   by   the   Code   of <\/p>\n
Civil Procedure. The Permanent Lok Adalat not being a `court’, the provision in <\/p>\n
the   contract   relating   to   exclusivity   of   jurisdiction   of   courts   at   Delhi   will   not <\/p>\n
apply.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                                 16<\/span><\/p>\n
17.     The   appellant   next   contended   that   even   if   the   jurisdiction   clause   is <\/p>\n
excluded   from   consideration,   only   courts   and   tribunals   at   Delhi   will   have <\/p>\n
jurisdiction   as   the   cause   of   action   arose   at   Delhi   and   not   at   Hyderabad.   The <\/p>\n
appellant   contended   that   the   respondent   boarded   the   flight   at   Delhi   and   the <\/p>\n
entire  incident  relating to delay and its consequences  took place at Delhi and <\/p>\n
therefore courts at Delhi alone will have jurisdiction. This contention is wholly <\/p>\n
untenable.   The   dispute   was   with   reference   to   a   contract   of   carriage   of   a <\/p>\n
passenger   from   Delhi   to   Hyderabad.   The   ticket   was   purchased   at   Hyderabad <\/p>\n
and   consequently   the   contract   was   entered   into   at   Hyderabad.   A   part   of   the <\/p>\n
cause of action also arose at Hyderabad as the respondent clearly alleged as one <\/p>\n
of the causes for claiming compensation, his illegal detention for an hour and <\/p>\n
half   at  the  Hyderabad  Airport  by  the  security   staff  of  the  appellant  when   the <\/p>\n
flight landed. Therefore the courts and tribunals at Hyderabad had jurisdiction <\/p>\n
to   entertain   the   claims\/disputes.   Section   22B<\/a>   provides   that   permanent   Lok <\/p>\n
Adalats shall be established for exercising jurisdiction in respect of one or more <\/p>\n
public utility services for such areas as may be specified in the notification. It is <\/p>\n
not   disputed   that   the   Permanent   Lok   Adalat   for   public   utility   services, <\/p>\n
Hyderabad was constituted for the area of Hyderabad and transport services by <\/p>\n
way   of carriage   of passengers  by  air   is  a  public  utility   service.  Therefore  we <\/p>\n
hold that the  Permanent Lok Adalat  at Hyderabad had jurisdiction to entertain <\/p>\n
the application against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                                 17<\/span><\/p>\n
18.     One  of the reasons assigned by the High Court to hold that Permanent <\/p>\n
Lok   Adalat   at   Hyderabad   had   jurisdiction   was   that   the   term   in   the   IndiGo <\/p>\n
conditions of carriage that only courts at Delhi will have jurisdiction should be <\/p>\n
ignored as most of the passengers buying tickets from IndiGo may not read the <\/p>\n
terms   and   conditions   regarding   jurisdiction   of   courts   and   therefore,   the   court <\/p>\n
should   adopt  a  liberal   approach   and  ignore   such  clauses   relating  to  exclusive <\/p>\n
jurisdiction.   The   said   reasoning   is   not   sound.   The   fact   that   the   conditions   of <\/p>\n
carriage contain the exclusive jurisdiction clause is not disputed. The e-tickets <\/p>\n
do   not   contain   the   complete   conditions   of   carriage   but   incorporate   the <\/p>\n
conditions   of   carriage   by   reference.   The   interested   passengers   can   ask   the <\/p>\n
airline for a copy of the contract of carriage or visit the web-site and ascertain <\/p>\n
the same. Placing the conditions of carriage on the web-site and referring to the <\/p>\n
same in the e-ticket and making copies of conditions of carriage available at the <\/p>\n
airport   counters   for   inspection   is   sufficient   notice   in   regard   to   the   terms   of <\/p>\n
conditions   of   the   carriage   and   will   bind   the   parties.   The   mere   fact   that   a <\/p>\n
passenger may not read or may not demand a copy does not mean that he will <\/p>\n
not be bound by the terms of contract of carriage. We cannot therefore, accept <\/p>\n
the   finding   of   the   High   Court   that   the   term   relating   to   exclusive   jurisdiction <\/p>\n
should be ignored on the ground that the passengers would not have read it. <\/p>\n
                                                18<\/span><\/p>\n
19.     We may also at this juncture refer to the confusion caused on account of <\/p>\n
the term  Permanent Lok Adalat  being used  to describe two different  types of <\/p>\n
Lok Adalats. The LSA Act refers to two types of Lok Adalats. The first is a Lok  <\/p>\n
Adalat  constituted   under   Section   19<\/a>   of   the   Act   which   has   no   adjudicatory <\/p>\n
functions   or   powers   and   which   discharges   purely   conciliatory   functions.   The <\/p>\n
second is a Permanent Lok Adalat established under section 22B(1) of LSA Act <\/p>\n
to   exercise   jurisdiction   in   respect   of   public   utility   services,   having   both <\/p>\n
conciliatory   and   adjudicatory   functions.   The   word  Permanent   Lok   Adalat  <\/p>\n
should refer only to Permanent Lok Adalats established under section 22B(1) of <\/p>\n
the LSA Act and not to the Lok Adalats constituted under section 19<\/a>. However <\/p>\n
in many states, when Lok Adalats are constituted under section 19 of LSA Act <\/p>\n
for regular or continuous sittings (as contrasted from periodical sittings), they <\/p>\n
are   also   called   as  Permanent   Lok   Adalats  even   though   they   do   not   have <\/p>\n
adjudicatory  functions.  In  LIC  of  India   vs.  Suresh  Kumar<\/a>  –  2011  (4)  SCALE <\/p>\n
137, this court observed: “It is needless to state that Permanent Lok Adalat has <\/p>\n
no jurisdiction or authority vested in it to decide any lis, as such, between the <\/p>\n
parties   even   where   the   attempt   to   arrive   at   an   agreed   settlement   between   the <\/p>\n
parties has failed”. The said decision refers to such a `Permanent Lok Adalat’ <\/p>\n
organized   under   section   19<\/a>   of   the   Act   and   should   not   be   confused   with <\/p>\n
Permanent Lok Adalats  constituted under section 22B(1)<\/a> of the Act. To avoid <\/p>\n
confusion, the State Legal Services Authorities and the High Courts may ensure <\/p>\n
                                                    19<\/span><\/p>\n
that  Lok   Adalats  other   than   the  Permanent   Lok   Adalats  established   under <\/p>\n
section 22B(1)<\/a> of the Act in regard to public utility services, are not described <\/p>\n
as Permanent Lok Adalats. One way of avoiding the confusion is to refer to the <\/p>\n
Lok Adalats constituted under section 19<\/a> of the Act on a regular or permanent <\/p>\n
basis as `Continuous Lok Adalats’. Be that as it may.\n<\/p>\n
\n
Re : Question (ii) to (iv)<\/p>\n
Low cost carrier vis-a-vis full service carrier<\/p>\n
20.     The   appellant   is   a   low   cost   carrier.   It   is   necessary   to   bear   in   mind   the <\/p>\n
difference between a full service carrier and a low cost carrier, though both are <\/p>\n
passenger   airlines.   Low   cost   carriers   tend   to   save   on   overheads,   operational <\/p>\n
costs and more importantly on the services provided. Low cost carriers install <\/p>\n
the maximum number of seats possible in their aircraft, and attempt to operate <\/p>\n
the aircraft to optimum levels and fill the seats to capacity. The passengers, who <\/p>\n
prefer to travel on budget fares, when opting for low cost carriers know fully <\/p>\n
well that they cannot expect from them, the services associated with full service <\/p>\n
carriers. From the passenger’s view point, the important difference between the <\/p>\n
two   classes   of   airlines   lies   in   the   on-board   service   offered   to   them   by   the <\/p>\n
airlines.   While   full   service   carriers   offer   several   services   including   free   food <\/p>\n
and beverages on board, low cost carriers offer the minimal `no-frills’ service <\/p>\n
                                                   20<\/span><\/p>\n
which does not include any free food or beverages except water. But the fact <\/p>\n
that   an   airline   is   a   low   cost   carrier   does   not   mean   that   it   can   dilute   the <\/p>\n
requirements relating to safety, security and maintenance. Nor can they refuse <\/p>\n
to   comply   with   the   minimum   standards   and   requirements   prescribed   by   the <\/p>\n
Director General of Civil Aviation (`DGCA’ for short). The fact that it offers <\/p>\n
only `no- frills’ service does not mean that it can absolve itself from liability for <\/p>\n
negligence, want of care or deficiency  in service. Both types of carriers have <\/p>\n
clauses either excluding or limiting liability in respect of certain contingencies. <\/p>\n
The disclaimers by low cost carriers will be more wider and exhaustive when <\/p>\n
compared to full service carriers. DGCA and other authorities concerned with <\/p>\n
licensing   low   cost   carriers,   shall   have   to   ensure   that   the   terms   of   contract   of <\/p>\n
carriage of low cost carriers are not unreasonably one sided with reference to <\/p>\n
their disclaimers. This becomes all the more necessary as the terms of contract <\/p>\n
of   carriage   are   not   incorporated   in   the   tickets   that   are   issued   and   usually <\/p>\n
passengers, who purchase the tickets, will not be able to know the actual terms <\/p>\n
and conditions of contract of carriage unless they visit the website of the airline <\/p>\n
or   seeks   a   copy   of   the   complete   terms   of   contract   of   carriage.   All   that   is <\/p>\n
required to be noted in the context of this case is that travel by a low cost carrier <\/p>\n
does not mean that the passengers are to be treated with any less care, attention, <\/p>\n
respect or courtesy when compared to full service carriers or that there can be <\/p>\n
dilution in the minimum standards of safety, security or efficiency. <\/p>\n
                                                          21<\/span><\/p>\n
Relevant statutory provisions and DGCA directives <\/p>\n
21.     The   Carriage   of   Air   Act<\/a>,   1972   gives   effect   to   the   convention   for <\/p>\n
unification   of   certain   rules   relating   to   international   carriage   by   air,   and <\/p>\n
amendments   thereto,   to   non-international   carriage   by   air.   Section   8<\/a>   provides <\/p>\n
that  the Central  Government  may   by  notification  in  the official  gazette  apply <\/p>\n
the rules contained in the first schedule to the Act and any provision of section <\/p>\n
3<\/a>   or   section   5<\/a>   or   section   6<\/a>   to   such   carriage   by   air,   not   being   international <\/p>\n
carriage by air, as may be specified in the notification, subject, however, to such <\/p>\n
exceptions,   adaptations,   modifications   as   may   be   so   specified.   Notification <\/p>\n
No.SO.186E   dated   30.3.1973   issued   under   section   8<\/a>   of   the   Act   applies   to <\/p>\n
sections 4<\/a>, 5<\/a> and 6<\/a> and the rules contained in the second schedule to the Act to <\/p>\n
all   carriages   by   air   (not   being   an   international   carriage)   and   also   modified <\/p>\n
several rules in the second schedule to the Act apart from amending sections 4<\/a> <\/p>\n
and 5<\/a> and omitting section 6<\/a> of the Act.  Chapter III of the Second Schedule to <\/p>\n
the   said   Act   relates   to   “liability   of   the   carrier”   and   clause   19   thereof   (as <\/p>\n
amended   by   Notification   No.SO.186(E)   dated   30.3.1973   issued   under   section <\/p>\n
8(2)<\/a> of that Act) is extracted below:-\n<\/p>\n
\n
        “19.    In   the   absence   of   a   contract   to   the   contrary,   the   carrier   is   not   to   be <\/p>\n
        liable   for  damage   occasioned   by  delay  in  the   carriage   by  air   of  passengers, <\/p>\n
        baggage or cargo.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                                            22<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
22.    Rule 134 of the Aircraft Rules 1937 provides that no person shall operate <\/p>\n
any scheduled air transport services except with the permission of the Central <\/p>\n
Government. Rule 133A of the said Rules provides that the special directions <\/p>\n
issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation (`DGCA’ for short) by way of <\/p>\n
circulars\/notices to aircraft owners relating to operation and use of aircraft shall <\/p>\n
be complied with by the persons to whom such direction is issued. The Director <\/p>\n
General   of   Civil   Aviation,   Govt.   of   India,   issued   a   circular   No.8\/2007   dated <\/p>\n
5.12.2007,   containing   the   guidelines   for   Aircraft   operations   during   Low <\/p>\n
Visibility   Conditions   (Fog   management)   at   IGI   Airport,   Delhi   which   were <\/p>\n
applicable on the relevant date (14.12.2007). Clauses 31, 32, 35 and 36 thereof <\/p>\n
are extracted below :\n<\/p>\n
\n
       “31) Airlines shall augment their ground staff and position them at the airport <\/p>\n
       with  proper briefing  for handling  various passenger  facilitation  processes  in <\/p>\n
       co-ordination with the other airport agencies.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
       32)         Airlines         shall         inform          their         passengers         of         the <\/p>\n
       delay\/rescheduling\/cancellation   of their   flights  in  through  mobile\/SMS\/other <\/p>\n
       communication mean to avoid congestion at the airport.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       35)   Airlines   shall   ensure   progressive   boarding   of   the   passengers   out   of <\/p>\n
       security hold area in order to avoid congestion in the security hold. Passenger <\/p>\n
       after   check-in   shall   be   made   to   proceed   for   security   by   the   airlines   after <\/p>\n
       ensuring   that   the   flight   is   ready   to   depart\/is   on   ground.   If   delayed,   after  <\/p>\n
       boarding, appropriate facilitation to be given by Airlines on board.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       36)  The   Airlines,   particularly   LCC   shall   provide   facilitation   in   terms   of  <\/p>\n
       tea\/water\/snacks   to   the   passenger   of   their   delayed   flights.  The   coupon <\/p>\n
       scheme   extended   by   DIAL   may   be   availed   by   airlines   for   the   passenger <\/p>\n
       facilitation purpose.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                                     [emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
                                                        23<\/span><\/p>\n
Other directives referred by way of comparison<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
23.     We may, by way of comparison also refer to the following provisions of <\/p>\n
the   subsequent   circular\/CAR   (Civil   Aviation   Requirements)     dated   6.8.2010 <\/p>\n
issued   by   DGCA   in   regard   to   the   facilities   to   be   provided   to   passengers   by <\/p>\n
airlines  due to denied boarding, cancellation  or delays in flights, which came <\/p>\n
into effect from 15.8.2010.\n<\/p>\n
\n
        “Introduction<\/p>\n
                 x x x<\/p>\n
        1.4 The operating airline would not have the obligation to pay compensation <\/p>\n
        in cases where the cancellations and delays have been caused by an event(s) <\/p>\n
        of force majeure i.e. extraordinary circumstance(s) beyond the control of the <\/p>\n
        airline,   the   impact   of   which   lead   to   the   cancellation\/delay   of   flight(s),   and <\/p>\n
        which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been <\/p>\n
        taken   by   the   airline.   Such   extraordinary   circumstances   may   in   particular, <\/p>\n
        occur   due   to   political   instability,   natural   disaster,   civil   war,   insurrection   or <\/p>\n
        riot,   flood,   explosion,   government   regulation   or   order   affecting   the   aircraft, <\/p>\n
        strikes   and   labour   disputes   causing   cessation,   slowdown   or   interruption   of <\/p>\n
        work or any other factors that are beyond the control of the airline. <\/p>\n
        1.5  Additionally, airlines would also not be liable to pay any compensation  <\/p>\n
        in   respect   of   cancellations   and   delays   clearly   attributable   to   Air   Traffic  <\/p>\n
        Control   (ATC),   meteorological   conditions,   security   risks,   or   any   other  <\/p>\n
        causes   that   are   beyond   the   control   of   the   airline   but   which   affect   their  <\/p>\n
        ability to operate flights on schedule.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n        Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of <\/p>\n
        an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft or several <\/p>\n
        aircraft on a particular day, gives rise to a long delay or delays, an overnight <\/p>\n
        delay,  or the cancellation  of one or more flights by that aircraft,  and which <\/p>\n
        could   not   be   avoided   even   though   the   airline   concerned   had   taken   all <\/p>\n
        reasonable measures to avoid or overcome of the impact of the relevant factor <\/p>\n
        and, therefore, the delays or cancellations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 x x x                        x x x                       x x x\n\n\n                                                  24<\/span>\n\n\n\n3.4 Delay in Flight\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
3.4.1 The airlines shall provide facilities in accordance with Para 3.6.1 (a) if  <\/p>\n
the   passenger   has   checked   in   on   time,   and   if   the   airline   expects   a   delay  <\/p>\n
beyond its original announced scheduled time of departure or a revised time  <\/p>\n
of departure of:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
a)    2 hours or more in case of flights having a block time of up to 2 = hrs; or<\/p>\n
b) 3 hours or more in case of flights having a block time of more than 2 = hrs <\/p>\n
      and up to 5 hours; or<\/p>\n
c)    4 hours or more in case of flights not falling under sub-para (1) and (b) of <\/p>\n
      Para 3.4.1.\n<\/p>\n
\n
3.4.2. When the reasonably expected time of departure is more than 24 hours, <\/p>\n
after the scheduled time of departure previously announced, the airline shall <\/p>\n
provide  facility  to  the  passengers   in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  para <\/p>\n
3.6.1(b) hereunder.\n<\/p>\n
\n3.4.3   An   operating   airline   shall   not   be   obliged   to   adhere   to   Para   3.6   if   the <\/p>\n
delay is caused due to extra ordinary circumstances as defined in Para 1.4 and <\/p>\n
Para 1.5 which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures <\/p>\n
had been taken.\n<\/p>\n
\n
         x x x                         x x x                         x x x<\/p>\n
3.6 Facilities to be offered to Passengers <\/p>\n
3.6.1 Passengers shall be offered free of charge the following: <\/p>\n
a) Meals and refreshments in relation to waiting time.\n<\/p>\n
\n
b) Hotel Accommodation when necessary (including transfers). <\/p>\n
3.6.2   Airlines   shall   pay   particular   attention   to   the   needs   of   persons   with <\/p>\n
reduced mobility and any other person (s) accompanying them. <\/p>\n
3.8 General <\/p>\n
3.8.1   The   airlines   shall   display   their   policies   in   regard   to   compensation, <\/p>\n
refunds and the facilities that will be provided by the airline in the event of <\/p>\n
denied boardings, cancellations and delays on their respective websites as part <\/p>\n
of their passenger Charter of Rights. Passengers shall be fully informed by the <\/p>\n
airlines of their rights in the event of denied boarding, cancellations or delays <\/p>\n
of their flights so that they can effectively exercise their rights provided at the <\/p>\n
time   of   making   bookings\/ticketing,   they   have   given   adequate   contact <\/p>\n
                                                       25<\/span><\/p>\n
        information   to  the   airline  or  their  agents.   The  obligation   of  airlines  to  fully <\/p>\n
        inform the passenger(s) shall be included in ticketing documents and websites <\/p>\n
        of   the   airlines   and   concerned   third   parties   (GDS   and   travel   agents)   issuing <\/p>\n
        such documents on airlines’ behalf. ”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
24.     We   may   also   refer   to   Regulation   (EC)   No.261\/2004   of   the   European <\/p>\n
Parliament and of the Council, establishing common rules on compensation and <\/p>\n
assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or <\/p>\n
long   delay   of   flights,   to   know   the   European   standards.       Clause   (17)   of   the <\/p>\n
preamble thereto provides thus :\n<\/p>\n
\n
        “(17)  Passengers  whose  flights are  delayed  for  a specified  time  should  be  <\/p>\n
        adequately   cared  for  and   should   be   able   to   cancel   their   flights   with <\/p>\n
        reimbursement   of   their   tickets   or   to   continue   them   under   satisfactory <\/p>\n
        conditions.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                                 (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Article 6<\/a> deals with delay, Article 8<\/a> deals with reimbursement and Regulation 9 <\/p>\n
deals with passengers’ right to care. We extract below the relevant regulations : <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        “Article 6 (Delay)<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        1.   When   an   operating   air   carrier   reasonably   expects   a   flight   to   be   delayed <\/p>\n
        beyond its scheduled time of departure:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
        (a) for two hours or more in the case of flights of 1,500 kilometres or less; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        (b) for three hours or more in the case of all intra-Community flights of more <\/p>\n
        than   1,500   kilometres   and   of   all   other   flights   between   1,500   and   3,500 <\/p>\n
        kilometres; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        (c) for four hours or more in the case of all flights not falling under (a) or (b), <\/p>\n
        Passengers shall be offered by the operating air carrier:<\/p>\n
                                                   26<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        (i)       the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(a)<\/a> and 9(2);<\/a> and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        (ii)      when the reasonably expected time of departure is at least the day after <\/p>\n
        the time of departure previously announced, the assistance specified in Article <\/p>\n
        9(1)(b)<\/a> and 9(1)(c);<\/a> and <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        (iii)     when the delay is at least five hours, the assistance specified in Article <\/p>\n
        8(1)(a).<\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
        2. In any event, the assistance shall be offered within the time limits set out <\/p>\n
        above with respect to each distance bracket.<\/p>\n
        Article 8 (Right to reimbursement or re-routing)<\/a><\/p>\n
                                                 xxxx<\/p>\n
        Article 9 (Right to care)<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        1.  Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered free  <\/p>\n
        of charge:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
        (a) meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        (b) hotel accommodation in cases<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        — where a stay of one or more nights becomes necessary, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        —   where   a   stay   additional   to   that   intended   by   the   passenger   becomes <\/p>\n
        necessary;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
        (c) transport between the airport and place of accommodation (hotel or other).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        2. In addition, passengers shall be offered free of charge two telephone calls, <\/p>\n
        telex or fax messages, or e-mails.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                                                          (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Liability for damages for delay<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
25.     Rule 19 of Second Schedule to Carriage by Air Act<\/a>, makes it clear that <\/p>\n
the carrier is not liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of <\/p>\n
passengers.   The   position   would   be   different   if   under   the   contract,   the   carrier <\/p>\n
agrees to be liable for damages. On the other hand, the IndiGo Conditions of <\/p>\n
                                                27<\/span><\/p>\n
Carriage   categorically   state   that   the   carrier   will   not   be   liable   to   pay   any <\/p>\n
damages for delays, rescheduling or cancellations due to circumstances beyond <\/p>\n
the control of IndiGo. There is no dispute that in this case, the delay was for <\/p>\n
reasons   beyond   the   control   of   the   carrier.   The   guidelines   show   that   the <\/p>\n
operating air carrier would not be liable to pay compensation to a passenger, in <\/p>\n
respect of either cancellation or delays attributable to meteorological conditions <\/p>\n
(weather\/fog   etc.,)   or   air   traffic   control   directions\/instructions,   which   are <\/p>\n
beyond   the   control   of   the   air   carrier.   The   Permanent   Lok   Adalat   recorded   a <\/p>\n
finding of fact that delay was due to dense fog\/bad weather and want of ATC <\/p>\n
clearance due to air traffic congestion, which were beyond the control of the air <\/p>\n
carrier and as a consequence rightly held that the air carrier was not liable for <\/p>\n
payment of any compensation for the delay as such. We may note this was the <\/p>\n
position as on the date of the incident (14.12.2007) and even subsequently, after <\/p>\n
the issue of the guidelines dated 6.8.2010 by the DGCA.\n<\/p>\n
\n
Liability to provide facilitation during delay<\/p>\n
26.    The issue of responsibility for delay in operating the flight is distinct and <\/p>\n
different   from   the   responsibility   of   the   airline   to   offer   facilitation   to   the <\/p>\n
passengers   grounded   or   struck   on   board   due   to   delay.   If   the   obligation   to <\/p>\n
provide   facilitation   to   the   passengers   is   legally   recognized,   either   based   on <\/p>\n
                                                28<\/span><\/p>\n
statutory   requirements   or   contractual   obligations   or   recognized   conventions, <\/p>\n
failure to provide the required minimum facilitation may, depending upon the <\/p>\n
facts   of   the   case,   amount   to   either   breach   of   statutory\/contractual   obligation, <\/p>\n
negligence, want of care or deficiency in service on the part of the operating <\/p>\n
airline entitling the passengers for compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\n
27.     We   may   consider   whether   there   was   any   such   obligation   to   provide <\/p>\n
facilitation to passengers by the appellant on 14.12.2007. As per the DGCA’s <\/p>\n
guidelines dated 5.12.2007 which were in force on 14.12.2007, there was such <\/p>\n
obligation on the part of the carrier. Clause 35 provided if the flight is delayed, <\/p>\n
after boarding, appropriate facilitation has to be given by the Airlines on board. <\/p>\n
Clause   36   provides   that   the   Airlines,   even   low   cost   carriers,   had   to   provide <\/p>\n
facilitation   in   terms   of   tea\/water\/snacks   to   the   passengers   of   their   delayed <\/p>\n
flights.\n<\/p>\n
\n
28.     Under   the   CAR   circular   dated   6.8.2010   which   came   into   effect   on <\/p>\n
15.8.2010,   in   the   event   of   delays   attributable   to   air   traffic   control   or <\/p>\n
meteorological   conditions,   the   operating   Airlines   shall   have   to   offer   to   the <\/p>\n
passengers free of cost, meals and refreshment in relation to waiting time, vide <\/p>\n
clause   3.6.1(a)   read   with   clause   3.4.1.   Facilitation   of   passengers   who   are <\/p>\n
stranded after boarding the aircraft on account of delays is an implied term of <\/p>\n
                                                   29<\/span><\/p>\n
carriage of passengers, accepted as an international practice, apart from being a <\/p>\n
requirement   to   be   fulfilled   under   DGCA’s   directives.   Such   facilitation   which <\/p>\n
relates to the health, survival and safety of the passengers, is to be provided, not <\/p>\n
only   by   full   service   carriers,   but   all   airlines   including   low   cost   carriers.   This <\/p>\n
obligation   has  nothing to  do with the  issue  of  liability  or  non-liability   to pay <\/p>\n
compensation   to   the   passengers   for   the   delay.   Even   if   no   compensation   is <\/p>\n
payable for the delay on account of bad weather or other conditions beyond the <\/p>\n
control of the air carrier, the airline will be made liable to pay compensation if <\/p>\n
it   fails   to   offer   the   minimum   facilitation   in   the   form   of <\/p>\n
refreshment\/water\/beverages, as also toilet facilities to the passengers who have <\/p>\n
boarded   the   plane,   in   the   event   of   delay   in   departure,   as   such   failure   would <\/p>\n
amount to deficiency in service. At the relevant point of time (14th  December <\/p>\n
2007), in the event of delay, passengers on-board were to be provided by the air <\/p>\n
carriers,   including   low   cost   carriers,   facilitation   by   way   of   snacks\/water\/tea <\/p>\n
apart from access to toilet. [Note: The facilitation requirement was subsequently <\/p>\n
revised   and   upgraded   with   effect   from   15.8.2010   as   “adequate   meals   and <\/p>\n
refreshments” due during the waiting period].\n<\/p>\n
\n
29.     We   may   at   this   juncture   refer   to   the   decision   of   this   Court   in  Ravneet  <\/p>\n
Singh Bagga  vs. KLM Royal  Dutch Airlines<\/a>  – 2000 (1) SCC  66, wherein  the <\/p>\n
                                                        30<\/span><\/p>\n
distinction between a deficiency in service and negligence is brought out. This <\/p>\n
Court held:\n<\/p>\n
\n
        “6.   The   deficiency   in   service   cannot   be   alleged   without   attributing   fault, <\/p>\n
        imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of <\/p>\n
        performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a <\/p>\n
        contract   or   otherwise   in   relation   to   any   service.   The   burden   of   proving   the <\/p>\n
        deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, <\/p>\n
        on facts, been found to have not established  any willful  fault, imperfection, <\/p>\n
        shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent. The deficiency in <\/p>\n
        service has to be distinguished from the tortuous acts of the respondent. In the <\/p>\n
        absence   of   deficiency   in   service   the   aggrieved   person   may   have   a   remedy <\/p>\n
        under the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist for grant of <\/p>\n
        relief   under   the   Act   for   the   alleged   acts   of   commission   and   omission <\/p>\n
        attributable to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in <\/p>\n
        service…… If on facts it is found that the person or authority rendering service <\/p>\n
        had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances <\/p>\n
        in the course of the transaction and that their action or the final decision was <\/p>\n
        in good faith, it cannot be said that there had been any deficiency in service. If <\/p>\n
        the action of the respondent is found to be in good faith, there is no deficiency <\/p>\n
        of   service   entitling   the   aggrieved   person   to   claim   relief   under   the   Act.   The <\/p>\n
        rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case <\/p>\n
        according to the facts of that case for which no hard and fast rule can be laid <\/p>\n
        down. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bonafide, rashness, haste or <\/p>\n
        omission   and   the   like   may   be   the   factors   to   ascertain   the   deficiency   in <\/p>\n
        rendering the service.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Effect of IndiGo Conditions of Carriage on the liability for facilitation <\/p>\n
30.     The   next   question   is   whether   the   exclusion   clause   in   the   IndiGo <\/p>\n
Conditions of Carriage can absolve liability to provide facilitation to passengers <\/p>\n
affected   by   delay.   The   relevant   clause   in   the   Indigo   conditions   of  carriage   is <\/p>\n
extracted below :\n<\/p>\n
\n
        “Flight Delays, Reschedule or Cancellations<\/p>\n
        IndiGo reserves the right to cancel, reschedule or delay the commencement or <\/p>\n
        continuance  of a flight  or to  alter  the stopping  place  or to deviate from  the <\/p>\n
                                                        31<\/span><\/p>\n
        route of the journey or to change the type of aircraft in use without incurring <\/p>\n
        any liability  in  damages  or otherwise  to  the  Customers  or  any other  person <\/p>\n
        whatsoever. Sometimes circumstances beyond IndiGo’s control result in flight <\/p>\n
        delays,   reschedule   or   cancellations.   In   such   circumstances,   IndiGo   reserves <\/p>\n
        the   right   to   cancel,   reschedule   or   delay   a   flight   without   prior <\/p>\n
        notice. Circumstances   beyond   IndiGo’s   control   can   include,   without <\/p>\n
        limitation, weather; air traffic control; mechanical failures; acts of terrorism; <\/p>\n
        acts   of   nature;   force   majeure;   strikes;   riots;   wars;   hostilities;   disturbances; <\/p>\n
        governmental   regulations,   orders,   demands   or   requirements;   shortages   of <\/p>\n
        critical   manpower,   parts   or   materials;   labour   unrest;   etc. IndiGo   does   not <\/p>\n
        connect   to   other   airlines   and   is   not   responsible   for   any   losses   incurred   by <\/p>\n
        Customers   while   trying   to   connect   to   or   from   other   airlines.<\/p>\n
        If   an   IndiGo   flight   is   cancelled,   rescheduled   or   delayed   for   more   than <\/p>\n
        two\/three   hours   (depending   on   the   length   of   the   journey),   a   Customer <\/p>\n
        shall   have   to   right   to   choose   a   refund;   or   a   credit   for   future   travel   on <\/p>\n
        IndiGo; or re-booking onto an alternative IndiGo flight at no additional <\/p>\n
        cost subject to availability.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
        x x x                                          x x x                                 x x x<\/p>\n
        Please  note  that   in  the   event  of  flight   delay,   reschedule  or   cancellation, <\/p>\n
        IndiGo does not provide compensation for travel on other airlines, meals, <\/p>\n
        lodging or ground transportation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                                  (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
31.     The said exclusion clause no doubt states that in the event of flight delay, <\/p>\n
IndiGo   would   not   provide   any   “meals”.   But   it   can   apply   to   passengers   who <\/p>\n
have not boarded the flight and who have the freedom to purchase food in the <\/p>\n
airport or the freedom to leave. It will not apply to passengers who are on board <\/p>\n
and the delay in the flight taking off, denies them access to food and water. In <\/p>\n
the   extra-ordinary   situation   where   the   passengers   are   physically   under   the <\/p>\n
complete care and control of the airline, as it happens when they have boarded <\/p>\n
the   aircraft   and   have   no   freedom   to   alight   from   the   aircraft,   the   duty   of   the <\/p>\n
airlines  to protect  and care for  them, and provide  for  basic facilitation  would <\/p>\n
                                                  32<\/span><\/p>\n
prevail over any term of the contract excluding any facilitation  (except where <\/p>\n
the   carrier   itself   cannot   access   food   due   to   emergency   situations).   No   public <\/p>\n
utility  service  can  say  that  it is  not  bound to care  for  the health,  welfare  and <\/p>\n
safety of the passengers because it is a low cost carrier. At all events, the said <\/p>\n
clause   in   question   stood   superseded,   in   so   far   as   flights   taking   off   from   IGI <\/p>\n
Airport,   Delhi,   having   regard   to   the   guidelines   relating   to   Aircraft   operations <\/p>\n
during   low   visibility   conditions   at   IGI   Airport,   Delhi,   which   provide   that   all <\/p>\n
airlines   including   low   cost   carriers   shall   provide   facilitation   in   terms   of <\/p>\n
tea\/water\/snacks to the passengers of delayed flights. (The DGCA directives in <\/p>\n
force   from   15.8.2010   clearly   provide   that   passengers   shall   be   offered   free   of <\/p>\n
cost   meals   and   refreshment   in   relation   to   the   waiting   time).   What   we   have <\/p>\n
stated   above   is   with   reference   to   the   passengers   on   board,   in   delayed   flights <\/p>\n
which have not taken off. Subject to any directives of DGCA to the contrary, <\/p>\n
the   exclusion   clause   will   be   binding   in   normal   conditions,   that   is,   during   the <\/p>\n
flight   period,   once   the   flight   has   taken   off,   or   where   the   passenger   has   not <\/p>\n
boarded.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
What was the period of delay?\n<\/p>\n
\n
32.     The respondent’s complaint is about the inordinate delay of eleven hours <\/p>\n
after   boarding.   The   question   is   whether   there   was   a   delay   of   nearly   eleven <\/p>\n
hours,   as   contended   by   the   respondent.   It   is   true   that   the   respondent   was <\/p>\n
                                                 33<\/span><\/p>\n
confined to the aircraft for nearly eleven hours on account of the delay. But a <\/p>\n
careful examination of the facts will show that the delay in a sense was not of <\/p>\n
11 hours (from 5.35 a.m. to 4.37 p.m). The respondent first took flight No.6E-<\/p>\n
301 which was scheduled to depart at 6.15 a.m. and boarded that flight at 5.45 <\/p>\n
a.m. When that flight was unduly delayed on account of the bad weather around <\/p>\n
11.15   a.m.   the   said   flight   was   cancelled   and   was   combined   with   subsequent <\/p>\n
flight   No.6E-305   due   to   depart   at   12.15   p.m.   When   flight   No.6E-301   was <\/p>\n
cancelled all its passengers were given the option of refund of the fare or credit <\/p>\n
for future  travel  or re-booking  on to an alternative  Indigo  flight. Because  the <\/p>\n
delayed flight was combined with the subsequent flight and the same  aircraft <\/p>\n
was to be used for the subsequent flight that was to take off at 12.15 p.m., the <\/p>\n
respondent and some others, instead of opting for refund of the air fare or re-<\/p>\n
booking on a subsequent flight, opted to continue to be in the aircraft and took <\/p>\n
the   combined   flight   which   was   scheduled   to   depart   at   12.15   p.m.   subject   to <\/p>\n
ATC   clearance.   In   so   far   as   flight   No.6E-301   is   concerned,   after   a   delay   of <\/p>\n
about five hours it was cancelled and the passengers could have left the aircraft <\/p>\n
as many did. If the respondent continued to sit in the aircraft, it was because of <\/p>\n
his voluntary decision to take the later flight which was a combination of flight <\/p>\n
No.6E-301 and 6E-305 which was due to depart at 12.15 p.m. (subject to ATC <\/p>\n
clearance) and that was delayed till 4.37 p.m. Therefore the delay in regard to <\/p>\n
the combined flight which was due for departure at 12.15 p.m. was four hours <\/p>\n
                                                 34<\/span><\/p>\n
and twenty minutes.\n<\/p>\n
\n
33.     The   respondent   was   offered   the   choice   of   refund   of   fare,   credit   for   a <\/p>\n
future travel on IndiGo or rebooking in a subsequent IndiGo flight. The third <\/p>\n
option was further extended by giving the option to remain on board by taking <\/p>\n
the   subsequent   combined   flight   using   the   same   aircraft   subject   to   ATC’s <\/p>\n
clearance. The respondent consciously opted for the third choice of continuing <\/p>\n
in the combined flight and remained in the aircraft. Therefore, the stay of eleven <\/p>\n
hours   in   the   aircraft   was   a   voluntary   decision   of  the   respondent,   as   he   could <\/p>\n
have left the aircraft much earlier around 11.00 a.m. by either opting to obtain <\/p>\n
refund of the air fare or by opting for credit for future travel or by opting for an <\/p>\n
IndiGo   flight   on   a   subsequent   day.   Having   opted   to   remain   on   board   the <\/p>\n
respondent could not make a grievance of the delay, or non-availability of food <\/p>\n
of his choice or medicines.\n<\/p>\n
\n
Whether the airline failed to provide facilitation to respondent?<\/p>\n
34.     It is not in dispute that during the initial period of delay, when it was not <\/p>\n
known   that   there   would   be   considerable   delay,   the   respondent   purchased   a <\/p>\n
sandwich   in   the   normal   course.   When   flight   No.6E-301   was   cancelled   and <\/p>\n
combined   with   the   subsequent   flight   No.6E-305,   the   on-board   passengers <\/p>\n
including  respondent  who opted to continue in the flight were offered snacks <\/p>\n
                                                 35<\/span><\/p>\n
(sandwiches) and water  free of cost, around 12 noon. As  the combined flight <\/p>\n
(No.6E-305) was also delayed, a second free offer of sandwiches and water was <\/p>\n
made around 3 p.m. But the second time, what was offered to respondent was a <\/p>\n
chicken   sandwich   and   as   the   respondent   who   was   a   vegetarian   refused   it,   he <\/p>\n
was offered biscuits and water, instead. It is not the case of the respondent that <\/p>\n
toilet   facilities   were   denied   or   not   made   available.   In   the   circumstances,   the <\/p>\n
appellant   being   a   low   cost   carrier,   the   facilitations   offered   by   it,   were <\/p>\n
reasonable and also met the minimum facilitation as per the DGCA guidelines <\/p>\n
applicable at the relevant point of time.\n<\/p>\n
\n
35.     In the absence of prior intimation about the preference in regard to food <\/p>\n
and   in   emergency   conditions,   the   non-offer   of   a   vegetarian   sandwich   in   the <\/p>\n
second   round   of   free   snacks   cannot   be   considered   to   be   a   violation   of   basic <\/p>\n
facilitation.   While   the   dietary   habits   or   religious   sentiments   of   passengers   in <\/p>\n
regard to food are to be respected and an effort should be made to the extent <\/p>\n
possible to cater to it, in emergency situations, non-offer of the preferred diet <\/p>\n
could not be said to be denial of facilitation, particularly when the airline had no <\/p>\n
notice of passengers’ preference in food. In fact, the appellant being a low cost <\/p>\n
carrier, there was also no occasion for indicating such preferences. We however <\/p>\n
note   that   in   the   subsequent   DGCA   guidelines   which   came   into   effect   from <\/p>\n
15.8.2010, the facilitation  to be provided  has been  appropriately  upgraded by <\/p>\n
                                              36<\/span><\/p>\n
directing   that   the   delayed   passengers   are   to   be   provided   with   meals   and <\/p>\n
refreshment as and when due depending upon the period of delay. <\/p>\n
36.    There is nothing to show that respondent requested for any treatment or <\/p>\n
medicines during the period when he was on board. He had also not notified the <\/p>\n
Airlines   that   he   was   a   patient   suffering   from   an   ailment   which   required <\/p>\n
medication or treatment. Therefore, the respondent could not expect any special <\/p>\n
facilitation, even if his condition would have added to his physical discomfort <\/p>\n
on account of delay.\n<\/p>\n
\n
Whether   respondent   is   entitled   to   compensation   for   detention   at <\/p>\n
Hyderabad?\n<\/p>\n
\n
37.    The next question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is <\/p>\n
liable   to compensate   the respondent  for  the detention  for  nearly  one  and half <\/p>\n
hours   after   disembarkation   at   Hyderabad.   The   appellant’s   version   is   that <\/p>\n
respondent   started   abusing   and   misbehaving   with   the   crew   members   using <\/p>\n
vulgar and threatening language, that he threw the biscuits  offered on a crew <\/p>\n
member,   that   he   was   detained   for   the   purpose   of   enquiry   by   the   Assistant <\/p>\n
Manager of the appellant at Hyderabad on the complaint of the crew members, <\/p>\n
but to avoid unnecessary complications and good customer relations, the crew <\/p>\n
members decided not to give written complaint and therefore he was permitted <\/p>\n
                                                 37<\/span><\/p>\n
to leave after some time. The respondent’s version is that the complaint by the <\/p>\n
crew was false and this was proved by the fact that they did not give a written <\/p>\n
complaint.   There   is   no   evidence   as   to   what   transpired   and   the   two   versions <\/p>\n
remained   unsubstantiated.   But   the   undisputed   facts   show   he   was   asked   to <\/p>\n
remain   in   view   of   a   complaint   by   the   crew,   that   CSIF   personnel   stated   that <\/p>\n
unless there was written complaint, no action could be taken, that the crew did <\/p>\n
not   give   written   complaint   and   the   respondent   was   permitted   to   leave   after <\/p>\n
about an hour of disembarkation. On the facts and circumstances this cannot be <\/p>\n
termed   to   be   unnecessary   or   deliberate   harassment   by   the   airlines.   While   the <\/p>\n
airlines ought to have been sensitive to the travails of the passengers who were <\/p>\n
cooped up in the aircraft for more than thirteen hours without adequate food or <\/p>\n
other   facilities,   the   airlines   also   could   not   ignore   any   complaint   by   the   crew <\/p>\n
about  any   unruly  behaviour   of any   passenger.  Be  that  as   it  may.  In  this   case <\/p>\n
neither the Permanent Lok Adalat, nor the High Court has recorded any finding <\/p>\n
of   wrongful   or   vexatious   detention   or   harassment.   Therefore   the   question   of <\/p>\n
awarding compensation under this head also does not arise.<\/p>\n
Whether the appellant is liable to pay damages?\n<\/p>\n
\n
38.     The  Permanent  Lok Adalat has  held that when there  was an inordinate <\/p>\n
delay after completion of boarding, the airlines had a moral duty, irrespective of <\/p>\n
rules   and   regulations,   to   take   back   the   passengers   to   the   airport   lounge   by <\/p>\n
                                                38<\/span><\/p>\n
obtaining   necessary   approvals   from   the   airport\/ATC   authorities   and   keep   the <\/p>\n
passengers in the lounge till the clearance for the flight to take off was given <\/p>\n
and failure to do so was an unexcusable and unbecoming behaviour on the part <\/p>\n
of   the   airline.   We   agree   that   the   carrier   should   take   steps   to   secure   the <\/p>\n
permission of the Airport and ATC authorities to take back the passengers who <\/p>\n
had already boarded to the airport lounge when there was an inordinate delay. <\/p>\n
But the assumption that the rules and regulations had to be ignored or without <\/p>\n
the consent and permission of the airport and ATC authorities, the airline crew <\/p>\n
ought to have taken back the passengers to the airport lounge, is not sound. The <\/p>\n
admitted position in this case is that the airlines made efforts in that behalf, but <\/p>\n
permission  was not granted  to the airlines  to send  back the passengers  to the <\/p>\n
airport lounge, in view of the heavy congestion in the airport. The airport and <\/p>\n
the ATC authorities  are not parties  to the  proceedings.  If permission  was not <\/p>\n
granted for the passengers to be taken to the airport lounge, the airlines cannot <\/p>\n
be   found   fault   with.   Therefore,   the   observation   that   failure   to   take   the <\/p>\n
passengers to the airport lounge was unexcusable and unbecoming behaviour on <\/p>\n
the part of the airlines, was not warranted on the facts and circumstances of the <\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
\n
39.       The High Court has justified the award of damages on the ground that as <\/p>\n
appellant did not operate IndiGo flight No.6E-301 as per schedule and caused <\/p>\n
                                               39<\/span><\/p>\n
inconvenience   to   a   passenger   who   is   a   diabetic   patient,   he   was   entitled   to <\/p>\n
nominal   damages   for   deficiency   in   service.   Where   the   delay   is   for   reasons <\/p>\n
beyond the control of the airlines as in this case due to bad weather and want of <\/p>\n
clearance   from   ATC,   in   the   absence   of   proof   of   negligence   or   deficiency   in <\/p>\n
service the airlines cannot be held responsible for the inconvenience caused to <\/p>\n
the passengers on account of the delay. The justification for damages given by <\/p>\n
the High Court does not find support either on facts or in law.<\/p>\n
Conclusion <\/p>\n
40.    There   can   be   no   doubt   that   the   respondent,   like   any   other   passenger <\/p>\n
forced to sit in a narrow seat for eleven hours, underwent considerable physical <\/p>\n
hardship and agony on account of the delay. But, it was not as a consequence of <\/p>\n
any  deficiency   in  service,   negligence  or  want  of  facilitation  by  the  appellant. <\/p>\n
Consumer fora and Permanent Lok Adalats can not award compensation merely <\/p>\n
because there was inconvenience or hardship or on grounds of sympathy. What <\/p>\n
is relevant is whether there was any cause of action for claiming damages, that <\/p>\n
is   whether   there   was   any   deficiency   in   service   or   whether   there   was   any <\/p>\n
negligence in providing facilitation. If the delay was due to reasons beyond the <\/p>\n
control of the airline and if the appellant and its crew have acted reasonably and <\/p>\n
in a bona fide manner, the appellant cannot be made liable to pay damages even <\/p>\n
                                                 40<\/span><\/p>\n
if there has been some inconvenience or hardship to a passenger on account of <\/p>\n
the delay.\n<\/p>\n
\n
41.     If a flight had remained on tarmac without taking off, for eleven hours, <\/p>\n
after   boarding   was   completed,   and   if   permission   was   refused   to   send   the <\/p>\n
passengers to the Airport lounge, the Airport  and ATC authorities  have to be <\/p>\n
blamed for requiring the passengers to stay on board. Normally if the aircraft <\/p>\n
has   remained   on   tarmac   for   more   than   two   or   three   hours   after   boarding   is <\/p>\n
closed, without the flight taking off, the passengers should be permitted to get <\/p>\n
back to the airport lounge to get facilitation service from the airline. Whenever <\/p>\n
there is such delay beyond a reasonable period (say three hours), the passengers <\/p>\n
on   board   should   be   permitted   to   get   back   to   the   airport   lounge.   If   for   any <\/p>\n
unforeseen   reason,   the   passengers   are   required   to   be   on   board   for   a   period <\/p>\n
beyond three hours or more, without the flight taking off, appropriate provision <\/p>\n
for food and water should be made, apart from providing access to the toilets. <\/p>\n
Congestion  in the airport  on account of the delayed and cancelled flights can <\/p>\n
not be a ground to prevent the passengers on board from returning to the airport <\/p>\n
lounge   when   there   is   a   delay   of   more   than   two   hours   after   completion   of <\/p>\n
boarding. While the guidelines issued by the DGCA cover the responsibilities <\/p>\n
of the airlines, DGCA and other concerned authorities should also specify the <\/p>\n
responsibilities of the airport and the ATC authorities to ensure that no aircraft <\/p>\n
                                                     41<\/span><\/p>\n
remains  on tarmac for more than three hours after the boarding is closed and <\/p>\n
that  if  it has  to  so  remain,  then  permit  the  passengers  to  return  to  the airport <\/p>\n
lounge from the aircraft, till the aircraft is ready to take off. DGCA shall also <\/p>\n
ensure that the conditions of carriage  of all airlines  in India is in consonance <\/p>\n
with its Civil Aviation Directives.\n<\/p>\n
\n
42.    In   view   of   our   findings,   this   appeal   is   allowed.   The   order   of   the <\/p>\n
Permanent Lok Adalat affirmed by the High Court awarding damages and costs <\/p>\n
to   the   respondent   is   set   aside   and   the   application   of   respondent   for <\/p>\n
compensation   is   rejected.   We   place   on   record,   our   appreciation   for   the <\/p>\n
assistance rendered by Shri V. Giri, senior counsel, as amicus curiae. <\/p>\n
                                                                 ………………………..J.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                                          (R V Raveendran)\n\n\n\n\n\nNew Delhi;                                                         ............................J.\n\nJuly 4, 2011.                                                                 (A K Patnaik)\n\n                                                 \n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011 Author: R.V.Raveendran Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4925 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.21108 of 2010] InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. … Appellant vs. N.Satchidanand … Respondent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-256372","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-26T22:49:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"52 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-26T22:49:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":10396,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-26T22:49:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-26T22:49:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"52 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-26T22:49:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011"},"wordCount":10396,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011","name":"M\/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-26T22:49:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-interglobe-aviation-ltd-vs-n-satchidanand-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256372","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=256372"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256372\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256372"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256372"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256372"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}