RAVNEET SINGH BAGGA versus M/S. KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 02-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RA VNEET SINGH BAGG A 
v. 
M/S. KLM ROY AL DUTCH AIRLINES AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 2, 1999 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
Sections 2(g) and (o)-Deficiency in service-Bonafide dispute-Action 
C or final decision in good faith-Whether amounts to deficiency in service-
Held, if the action is found to be in good faith, there is no deficiency in 
service under the Act-Deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the 
tortuous acts. 
D 
Words & Phrases-'Deficiency' - Meaning of 
Appellant-Complainant had booked himself from New Delhi to 
Amsterdam and further from Amsterdam to New York with respondent No. 1 
for 18th October, 1991 as he had an important business appointment on that 
day and wanted to reach New York before 1630 hrs. Complainant also booked 
E himself on an earlier flight of respondent No. 2 from Amsterdam to New York 
while retaining his earlier booking. Since doubts were expressed about visa 
of the complainant at Amsterdam, proceedings were initiated for verification 
of his visa. On finding the visa valid and authentic, complainant was placed on 
the first available flight of respondent No. 1 to New York and reached there 
at 2000 hrs. on the same day. 
F 
Appellant filed a Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 
against the respondents before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal 
Commission on the ground of negligence and deficiency in service and alleged 
that he suffered emotional distress and business loss due to his late arrival 
in New York. The National Commission dismissed the complaint on the 
G ground that the verification procedure was initiated as the staff of respondent 
No. 1 at Amsterdam had bonafide suspicion or doubt about the visa, and it 
was completed expeditiously; and that there was no evidence that the 
complainant had contacted the counter of respondent No. 2 and so he cannot 
set up a claim against it. Against the order of the National Commission, the 
H complainant has filed the present appeal. 
320 
,' 
-
R.S. BAGGA v. KLM ROY AL DUTCH AIRLINES 
321 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. Deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing 
fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and 
manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in 
pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden 
of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The B 
deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the tortuous acts. In the 
absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under 
the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist on grant of relief 
under the Consumer Protection Act for the alleged acts of commission and 
omission which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service. In case of C 
bonajide disputes no wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy 
in the quality, nature and manner of performance in the service can be 
informed. If on facts it is found that the person or authority rendering service 
had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances 
in the course of the transaction and that their action or the final decision was 
in good faith, it cannot be said that there had been any deficiency in service D 
under the Consumer Protection Act. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence 
of bonafide, rashness, haste or omission and the like may be the factors to 
ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service. [326-H; 327-D) 
1.2. Respondent No. I cannot be held to be guilty of rendering inefficient 
service because its staff at Amsterdam is proved to have acted fairly and in a 
bonajide manner keeping in mind the security and safety of passengers and 
the aircraft. The staff of respondent No.I had found that the appellant was 
having two confirmed tickets from Amsterdam to New York-One in the flight 
of respondent No. I and the other in the flight of respondent No. 2 and that 
E 
his photograph on the visa documents was a photocopy and not original which F 
was unusual. In view of two bookings and the visa papers being doubtful, the 
staff of the respondent No. I Airlines took sometime to ascertain the truth 
and made all efforts to ensure that the complainant reached New York on the 
same day. The bonafide action taken by the staff of the respondent No.I 
Airlines cannot be held to be a deficiency in service. [327-E-F-G) 
G 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.