CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and styled as Consumer Education and Research Society, has filed this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) complaining about the delay in the departure of flight No. IC -401 on May 13,1989. Opposite Party is Indian Airlines Corporation which operated that Flight. It may be mentioned here that in Para No.5 of the complaint and in the relief clauses reference to another flight whose departure on May 3,1989 was also delayed has been made by the Complainant but in the rejoinder filed by the Complainant to the written statement of the opposite party, it has been stated that the present complaint is only with respect to the incident of May 13, 1989 and the incident of May 3,1989 has been mentioned only as illustrative of the attitude and the performance of me opposite party.

(2.) THE case of the Complainant is that according to certain newspaper report, passengers travelling by flight No. IC -401 from Calcutta to Delhi on May 13,1989 were made to stay at the airport for a lone time as the departure of the flight was delayed by as much as 90 minutes as the Chief Minister of Tripura, who was to board that flight, did not turn up in time. The delay in the departure of me flight\is reported to have caused great inconvenienced the passengers. It was further alleged by the Complainant that delays in the departure of flights have become phenomenal so far as the nationalized service is concerned. The passengers travel by air primarily to save time but delay in the departure, of the flights causes inconvenience and hardship the passengers in terms of sitting idle at the airport for hours. It is also pleaded by the Complainant that a duty is cast on the opposite party to infrom all the passengers of me said flight of May 13,1989 that the flight was delayed and that they were entitled to file complaints before this Commission for claiming damages.

(3.) THE opposite party traversed the allegations of the Complainant and further pleaded that the facts pleaded in the complaint have not been verified by the Complainant as to their authenticity and are based upon reported version of 3rd person and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed summarily. It was also averred that the Complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as they have not been legally authorised to represent the passengers of the said flight of May 13,1989. Explanation about the delay in the departure of that flight was also given by the opposite party but for the purposes of this order it is not necessary to dwell upon it. It may be mentioned here that according to the opposite party, said flight was to commence from Delhi and not from Calcutta as pleaded by the complainant.