LexM/S INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. versus N. SATCHIDANAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 6 S.C.R. 1116 M/S INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. v. N. SATCHIDANAND (Civil Appeal No. 4925 of 2011) JULY 4, 2011 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: c s. 22-B - Permanent Lok Ada/at for public utility services - Jurisdiction of - Air passenger - Ticket purchased at Hyderabad - Plane boarded at Delhi for Hyderabad - Delay in flight - After flight landed at Hyderabad, passenger detained for inquiry - Claim for damages by passenger for 0 deficiency in service and alleged illegal detention - HELD: Permanent Lok Ada/at, Hyderabad had jurisdiction to entertain the application of the passenger. Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Ada/at - Exclusion clause in contract - Scope and interpretation of - HELD: Parties E cannot, by agreement, confer jurisdiction on a court which does not have jurisdiction - Ouster of jurisdiction of some courts is permissible so long as the court on which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred had jurisdiction - In the instant case, as the clause provides that irrespective of the place of cause F of action, only courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction, the said clause is invalid in law - Further, a clause ousting the jurisdiction of a court has to be construed strictly - Permanent Lok Ada/at is a Special Tribunal and not a court - G H Interpretation of statutes. ss. 19 and 22-B - Lok Ada/at constituted uls 19 and Permanent Lok Ada/at constituted u/s 22-B - Distinction between - Explained - Confusion in nomenclature clarified - HELD: Lok Adalats constituted uls 19 on a regular or 1116 INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD. v. N. SATCHIDANAND 1117 permanent basis, may be referred to as 'Continuous Lok A Adalats'. Contract: Airlines - e-ticketing - Conditions of carriage by reference - HELD: Placing the conditions of carriage on the B web-site and referring to the same in the e-ticket and making copies of conditions of carriage available at the airport counters for inspection is sufficient notice in regard to the terms of conditions of the carriage and will bind the parties - The mere fact that a passenger may not read or may not C demand a copy does not mean that he will not be bound by the terms of contract of carriage - Notice. Carriage by Air Act, 1972: Second Schedule - Clause 19- Low cost carrier- Flight D delayed after the passengers boarded the plane - Cancellation of flight and option given to passengers to continue the journey by the combined flight in the same aircraft - Passenger opted to avail the option - Combined flight also delayed - Application by passenger before E Permanent Lok Ada/at claiming damages for deficiency in service - HELD: Permanent Lok Ada/at recorded a finding of fact that delay was due to dense fog/bad weather and want of A TC clearance due to air traffic congestion, which were beyond the control of the air carrier, and as a consequence, F rightly held that the air carrier was not liable for payment of any compensation for the delay as such. Liability of carrier to provide facilitation during delay - HELD: The issue of responsibility for delay in operating the G flight is distinct and different from the responsibility of the airline to offer facilitation to the passengers grounded or struck on board due to delay - Even if no compensation is payable for the delay on account of bad weather or other conditions beyond the control of the air carrier, the airline will H 1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 6 S.C.R. A be made liable to pay compensation if it fails to offer the minimum facilitation in the form of refreshment/water/ beverages, as also toilet facilities to the passengers who have boarded the plane, in the event of delay in departure, as such failure would amount to deficiency in service - Jn the instant B case, though the claimant had to stay in the aircraft for 11 hours, it was because of his voluntary decision to take the later flight which was a combined flight and the delay in regard to combined flight was 4 hours 20 minutes - However, the airline served snacks and water two times - Further there was no c complaint that toilet facilities were denied - Thus, the facilities offered by the carrier were reasonable and met the minimum facilitation as per DGCA guidelines applicable at the relevant point of time - Thus the airline was not liable to pay any damages - The order of the Permanent Lok Ada/at affirmed 0 by the High Court awarding damages and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.