Principle Of Natural Justice Not Followed, Uttarakhand Commission Set Aside Order Against KLM Airlines To Pay 8 Lacs To Customer

Brief Facts:

In October 2021, Mr. Sushil Kumar ("Complainant"), a resident of Dehradun, was scheduled to travel on an international flight operated by KLM Airlines ("airline") from Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi to Bogota, Colombia. Despite having valid documents, the complainant was denied boarding on the flight due to what the airline considered "suspicious" attire. This incident resulted in the complainant suffering various losses, including financial expenses, emotional distress, and costs related to litigation. Consequently, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pauri Garhwal ("District Commission"), seeking compensation for the aforementioned losses. As the airline did not appear before the District Commission, an ex parte order was passed in favour of the complainant, directing the airline to pay an amount of Rs. 90,035/- for causing financial loss, along with Rs. 7,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- for litigation expenses. Displeased with the District Commission's order, the airline filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand ("State Commission").

The complainant asserted that he arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport with all valid travel documents to board his KLM Airlines flight to Bogota, Colombia. However, he was unexpectedly denied boarding due to the airline deeming his attire "suspicious." This led to financial losses, including travel insurance and visa processing fees. The incident caused him significant emotional distress, prompting him to seek psychiatric treatment.

On the other hand, the airline contended that the decision to deny the complainant's boarding was grounded in security concerns and passenger safety, rather than racial profiling. They acknowledged refunding his flight ticket cost but contested liability for other expenses. The airline emphasized that the District Commission's ex parte ruling led to procedural unfairness, denying them the chance to present their side.

Observations by the State Commission:

The State Consumer Commission referred to the judgment in the case of Topline Shoes Ltd. vs. Corporation Bank II (2002) CPJ 7 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of considering all facts and circumstances, along with the provisions of the applicable laws, when deciding matters related to consumer disputes. Furthermore, in that case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the time frame provided for filing replies should serve as a guideline, allowing the forum or commission to exercise its discretion in a manner that serves the interests of justice and promotes the swift resolution of cases. The principle of natural justice, which ensures that all parties are heard, was also stressed in the context of achieving the objective of expedited case disposal.

Consequently, the State Commission directed that the case be remanded back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pauri Garhwal ("District Commission"). The District Commission was also instructed to conduct a fresh hearing, affording both parties an equal opportunity to present their evidence and arguments. The State Commission emphasized the importance of equitable treatment and due process in legal proceedings.

The directive included specific instructions for the parties to appear before the District Commission on September 18, enabling the airline to file a written statement in response to the consumer complaint. Furthermore, the State Consumer Commission ordered the release of the amount previously deposited by the airline in connection with the case.

Case: M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs Sh. Sushil Kumar

Case No.: A/47/2023

Advocate for the Appellant: Tejasvi Chaudhry

Advocate for the Respondent: Bhawna Joshi

Click Here To Read/Download Order