'Even Profit Making Entities Indifferent To Consumers': Cochin Airport Directed To Compensate Passenger Who Got Drenched While Boarding, Caught Fever

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently directed the Cochin International Airport Ltd. (CIAL) to pay a compensation of Rs. 16,000/- to a passenger for its failure to provide adequate facilities to him to board the flight without getting drenched in the rain. 

The bench comprising President D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T. N., while passing the Order, observed, 

"It is generally seen that even huge profit making entities are indifferent in their attitude towards consumers in the protection of their rights. We cannot be mute spectators when consumers approach commissions like these for the redressal of their grievances which cannot be raised elsewhere". 

The complainant in this case, who is a frequent flyer, averred that he had gotten completely wet on a rainy day at the departure at CIAL due to lack of any rain shelter. He averred that he had to board the plane in wet clothes, and was bed ridden with fever and body pain after reaching New Delhi due to the deficiency in service. The complainant further submitted that there was also a delay in security check due to the deficiency in the number of personnel from Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at CIAL. The complainant also submitted that there were no aerobridges in the Airport.

The complainant further averred that there is an 'unmanageable rush' at CIAL due to the partial closing of the Calicut International Airport and the Goa Airport. Resultantly, there ought to have been redeployment of the CISF personnel working at such airports to CIAL, which the complainant states, has not been done, thereby resulting in the CISF personnel at CIAL always misbehaving with the passengers. The complainant alleged that since he had paid for the Airline ticket which includes the Passenger Service Fee (PSF), out of which the security component is utilized towards meeting the security-related expenses including salary to CISF personnel, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in that respect. 

It was when no action was forthcoming from the Opposite Parties in the representation made by the complainant that he approached the Commission seeking an Order directing the Opposite Parties to pay compensation to a tune of Rs. 1 Lakh towards deficiency and cost of proceedings.

The various Opposite Parties argued that the present complaint did not indicate the dates of travel or even the airline or any other such particulars, and was hence frivolous and baseless. It was averred that the impugned action, if any, taken by the CISF personnel could not be treated as 'service' as defined under Section 2(l)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, since the same is part of its statutory functioning and a legal duty. Redeployment of CISF personnel was hence, submitted to be an internal procedure, and not within the purview of CIAL. In fact, it was stated that no such instances of misbehaviour of the personnel had been brought to the attention of CIAL, and hence, it was argued that the same was "an utter falsehood". As regards aerobridges, it was submitted that an aerobridge is not a mandatory requirement, and several other metro airports such as at Delhi, etc., functioned without the same. 

Findings of the Commission 

The Commission in this case discerned that the crux of the complaint could be summarized under two heads, namely, the lack of passenger amenities provided by the Managing Director of CIAL, the Chairman of CIAL, and the Chief Secretary (Opposite Parties 1-3 respectively); and the lack of adequate security infrastructure provided by the CISF, which is attributable to the Commandant and Director General of CISF (4th and 5th Opposite Parties, respectively). 

At the outset, the Commission rejected the arguments of the 1st Opposite Party that there was no customer-service provider relationship between itself and the complainant since the consideration was paid by the latter to the airline directly. The Commission took note of the decisions in Urban Planning and Development Authority & Ors. v. Vidya Chetal & Ors. (2019), and The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer & Anr. v. Kesar Lal, and observed that the complainant herein could be considered a consumer if he is a beneficiary of the service rendered by the 1st Opposite Party.  The Commission reasoned that this was because no amount of the PSF component towards passenger facilitation went to the airlines, but that it solely went towards the airport. 

"Furthermore, passenger facilitation as a service is not rendered free of charge, and is the discharge of non-sovereign functions, which are not rendered free of charge, and hence would come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and a customer-service provider relationship between the 1st Opposite Party and the complainant is established," the Commission added. 

However, the Commission discerned that there could not be any consumer-service provider relationship between the Complainant and the 4th and 5th Opposite Parties as regards the CISF. The Commission reasoned that this was because, as pointed out by the said Opposite Parties, the salary of the CISF personnel was from the Consolidated Fund of India, which in turn, was recoverable from the client organization as security component of the PSF since the CISF is a compensatory cost force governed under the CISF Act, 1968, discharging a sovereign function and performing statutory duty. 

The Commission went on to note that the complainant had failed to establish that he was a frequent flyer of CIAL, and also failed to provide evidence to substantiate his claims of compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service of the Opposite Parties. 

The Commission further observed that the 1st Opposite Party had failed to submit data/information to disprove the claim of the complainant regarding the rain and the non-provision of a step ladder without rain canopy for boarding the aircraft. 

"Furthermore, no evidence is adduced by the 1st Opposite Party to show that it is the duty of the airlines concerned to provide for the ladder to board/de-board the aircraft and that the 1st Opposite Party is excluded from providing it under PSF which the 1st Opposite Party has collected from the Complainant," the Court added while holding that the 1st Opposite Party was liable to compensate the Complainant in this regard. 

Accordingly, the Commission ordered the 1st Opposite Party to pay the Complainant within 30 days:

i. An amount of Rs. 8,000/- for the physical discomfort, mental pain, and agony due to its act/omission; and

ii. An amount of Rs. 8,000/- towards the cost of the Order

Case Title: T.G.N. Kumar v. The Managing Director, CIAL & Ors.