None is present on behalf of the respondents though notices have been served to both the respondents, therefore, they are proceeded ex parte.

2.     Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. She states that the respondent/ complainant had booked an Air India flight ticket from Delhi to Mumbai for 27^th May 2012 for Rs.4640/-. The flight was cancelled due to the strike of the pilots. As the respondent no.1/ complainant had purchased the ticket from respondent no.2, however, he had not given any telephone number or e mail address, therefore, he could not get the information about the cancellation of the flight. Respondent no.1 has filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad (‘the District Forum’) being CC no. 380 of 2012 for refund of the ticket as well as compensation for mental agony and harassment. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party/ petitioner herein by filing the written statement stating the fact that the flight was cancelled due to the strike of the pilots. However, the District Forum vide its order dated 14.07.2016 allowed the complaint and directed OP to pay as under:

1. Rs.4640/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of journey to its realisation;

2. Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental tension and agony; and

3. Rs.5100/- as litigation cost.

3.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party/ petitioner herein filed an appeal before the State Commission being FA no.828 of 2016. The State Commission vide its order dated 17.05.2017 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the District Forum.

4.     Hence, the present revision petition.

5.     I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who states that as per DGCA rules, if the flight is cancelled due to a reason beyond the control of the Airline such as pilots’ strikes, the Airlines is not bound to pay any compensation to the passengers.

6.     The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Commission in the case of M/s Emirates (Airlines) vs Raj Kumar Sharma through Attorney Ashutosh Kaushash in FA no. 473 of 2009 decided on 23.05.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inter Globe Aviation Ltd., vs N Satchidanand in CA no. 4925 of 2011 decided on 04.07.2011 wherein no compensation has been  provided due to inconvenience to a passenger on account of delay. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:

“There can be no doubt that the respondent, like any other passenger forced to sit a narrow seat for eleven hours, underwent considerable physical hardship and agony on account of the delay. But it was not as a consequence of any deficiency in service, negligence or want of facilitation by the appellant. Consumer Fora and permanent Lok Adalats cannot award compensation merely because there was inconvenience or hardship or on grounds of sympathy. What is relevant is whether there was any cause of action for claiming damages, that is whether there was any deficiency in service or whether there was any negligence in providing facilitation. If the delay was due to reasons beyond the control of the airline and if the appellant and its crew acted reasonably and in a bona fide manner, the appellant cannot be made liable to pay damages even if there has been some inconvenience or hardship to a passenger on account of the delay”.

7.     I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. The ticket was purchased for Rs.4640/-. The opposite party in their written statement has taken a stand right from the very beginning that the flight was cancelled due to the strike of pilots’ and it was beyond the control of the OP and it was a force majeure condition. Therefore as per the DGCA guidelines, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

8.     Provisions of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 state that remedy under the CP Act 1986 is an additional remedy or an alternate remedy. Thus, once a consumer complaint is filed within the ambit of CP Act, 1986, section 14 ( 1) (d) of the CP Act, 1986 provides for appropriate compensation to be given to the complainant. The judgment of this Commission in the case of M/s Emirates (Airlines) vs Raj Kumar Sharma through Attorney Ashutosh Kaushash (supra) relates to a case where there was rescheduling of the flight, however, the present case is in respect of cancellation of flight. Similarly, in the case of Inter Globe Aviation Ltd., N Satchidanand (Supra) the matter relates to inconvenience caused to a passenger on account of delay of flight whereas in the present case, the matter relates to cancellation of flight altogether. As the facts in both the referred cases are different then the facts of the present case, the analogy cannot be extended to the present case.

9.      In the present case, it is clear that the complainant/ passenger must have suffered lot of mental agony when he goes to the Airport and comes to know that his flight has been cancelled. He may have to make alternate arrangements to go to his destination. As stated above, he is entitled to compensation in the light of section 3 of CP Act, 1986 which allows filing of the complaint as an alternate remedy. However, it is seen that compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.5100/- awarded by the District Forum in addition to the refund of the cost of the flight ticket along with interest @ 9% is on a higher side. It should be kept in mind that cancellation of the flight was not deliberate on the part of the opposite party though it has caused suffering, mental agony to the complainant/ passenger. Keeping these factors in mind, I deem it appropriate to allow the compensation of only Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant instead of Rs.50,000/- by the opposite party in the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the orders of the fora below stand modified. The award of Rs.5100/- as cost of litigation is maintained as well as refund of cost of ticket of Rs.4640/- along with 9% interest is also maintained.

10.   With these directions, the revision petition no. 2547 of 2017 stands disposed of. The order be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.