SC ruling on Airline duty to passengers

Facilitation of passengers who are stranded after boarding the aircraft on account of delay is an implied term of carriage of passengers accepted as an international practice,apart from being a requirement to be fulfilled under DGCA’s directives. Such facilitation,which relates to the health,survival and safety of the passengers,is to be provided not only by full-service carriers but all airlines including low-cost carriers.

“The airline will 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,” Justice Raveendran writing the judgement said.

The apex court passed the ruling while upholding an appeal filed by low-cost operator IndiGo Airlines challenging a direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat of Andhra Pradesh to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 to a passenger N.Satchidanand,who had claimed he was stranded in the aircraft for over 11 hours after boarding it.

The passenger had claimed he developed cramps in the legs and was denied vegetarian snacks by the airlines despite his being a diabetic.

However,the apex court rejected his plea after noting that he had voluntarily stayed in the aircraft to catch a combined flight despite being offered refund of his ticket or postponing his journey.

The delay occurred in the flight scheduled from New Delhi to Hyderabad on December 14,2007,on account of dense fog.

Though the apex court gave a clean chit to the low-cost airline it made a general ruling that airlines irrespective of their status have to comply with certain established norms.

“The fact that an airline is a low-cost carrier does not mean that it can dilute the requirements relating to safety,security and maintenance nor can they refuse to comply with the minimum standards and requirements prescribed by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).

“The fact that it offers only ‘no-frills-service does not mean that it can absolve itself from liability for negligence,want of care or deficiency in service.

“All that is required to be noted in the context of this case is that travel by a low-cost carrier does not mean that the passengers are to be treated with any less care,attention,respect or courtesy when compared to full-service carriers or that there can be dilution in the minimum standards of safety,security or efficiency,” the apex court

said.

“Normally if the aircraft has remained on tarmac for more than two or three hours after boarding is closed,without the flight taking off,the passengers should be permitted to get back to the airport lounge to get facilitation service from the airline.

“Whenever there is such delay beyond a reasonable period (say three hours),the passengers on board should be permitted to get back to the airport lounge,” the bench said.

According to the apex court,if for any unforeseen reason,the passengers are required to be on board for a period beyond three hours or more,without the flight taking off,appropriate provision for food and water should be made,apart from providing access to the toilets.

“Congestion in the airport on account of the delayed and cancelled flights cannot be a ground to prevent the passengers on board from returning to the airport lounge when there is a delay of more than two hours after completion of boarding,the bench added.