1.       The present two Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act. As these RPs involve similar facts and questions of law and have been filed against the similar order of State Commission, these have been taken up together. However, RP/187/2018 has been taken as lead case. Both the RPs have been filed against the order dated 09.10.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeals (FAs) No.40/2014 (filed by OP-2/United Airlies) and 45/2014 (filed by Ms. Dandu HaindaviAruna Jyothi/Complainant), in which order dated 20.12.2013, of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Deoria (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 68/2009 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order passed by the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (in RP/187/2018) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent-1 before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and Resspondent-1 (hereinafter also referred to as  OP-1/Jet Airways) was Respondent-2 before the State Commission and OP-1 before the District Forum, the Respondent-2 (in RP/187/2018)  (hereinafter also referred to as OP-2/United Airlines) was Appellant before the State Commission and OP-2 before the District Forum.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondents on 30.01.2018.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 14.01.2019 (Petitioner) and 05.12.2023 & 09.04.2024(Respondent-2).

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that:-

The complainant/Petitioner herein booked air ticket to travel from Wichita to India for 23.12.2008 through travel agent, Saber Travels. The flight from Wichita to Chicago was scheduled at 10.30 a.m. on 23.12.2008 and its connecting flight was scheduled at 4.08 p.m. on 23.12.2008. The Petitioner was supposed to travel from London to Mumbai in the Jet Airways 9W 0119  and from Mumbai to Hyderabad in Flight  9W 0453 of Respondent -1 on 24.12.2008. Because of delayed start at Wichita, the Petitioner  had missed all the connecting flights. After, arriving at Chicago, the Complainant contacted the Customer Service Department of the Respondent-1/Jet Airways , which rescheduled her flight UA 938 the next day to London. The Complainant had to stay in Chicago Airport from 7.30 p.m. on 23.12.2008 till 9.35 A.M. on 24.12.2008 owing to the delayed start at Wichita. The Respondent -2/United Airlines issued boarding pass to the Complainant informing that she can travel by Jet Airways 9W 117 on 25.12.2008 from Heathrow Airport, London. The Respondent-2/United Airways stated to have informed the Respondent-1/Jet Airways that they cannot provide accommodation to her at London. On 25.12.2008, the complainant landed at 11.05 a.m. at London and she was informed that her name was not listed in 9W 117 that day night flight. The Respondent -1/Jet Airways said to have informed the Complainant that it would not provide accommodation to her as delay was not caused due to any fault on its part. The baggage of complainant had gone missing and she visited the airport every day during her stay in London to know about her missing baggage. The complainant lodged complaint about missing of her baggage, at Mumbai and the Jet Airways paid an amount of Rs.48,960/- towards compensation for her missing baggage. Despite her request for providing accommodation because of her illness, the Respondent -2 refused to provide the accommodation on the premise of peak hours at Chicago. She contended that the Respondent -/Jet Airways denied her accommodation in London citing the cause for delay of the flight was somebody else’s. Her baggage contained her certificates and the gifts worth $3000 and because of loss of documents she could not pursue her further studies. Hence, filed complaint before the District Forum. 

5.       Vide Order dated 12.12.2013, in the CC No. 68/2009 the District Forum allowed the complaint partly and directed the OP-1/Jet Airways to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the loss of her baggage.  The OP-2 /United Airlines was also directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards deficiency of service and negligence on its part.  30 days’ time was given for compliance and if OPs failed to pay the said amounts within the stipulated time, the compensation shall carry interest @12% p.a.

6.       Aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2013 of the District Forum, the United Airlines/OP-2 filed FA/40/2014 before the State Commission and  the Complainant being dissatisfied by the award by the District Forum, filed FA/45/2014 before the State Commission.  The State Commission vide a common order dated 09.10.2017, allowed appeal No. 40/2014 filed by OP-2 and dismissed the appeal No. 45/2014 filed by the complainant.

7.       Petitioner/complainant has challenged the said Order dated 09.10.2017 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i) The State Commission was not correct in reversing the well-considered order of District Forum by dismissing the complaint without considering the documents on record on an erroneous view of the matter, by following the judgments, which are not at all applicable to the facts of the case.

(ii)The State Commission under impression that the complainant relying on the original ticket which was issued to travel from Witchita to Chicago and Chicago to London and London to Shamshabad via Mumbai, which is not at all correct. There was no grievance in view of weather conditions in travelling from Witchita to Chicago.  The grievance is only travelling from Chicago, where there is no bad condition and where a new confirmed E-ticket was given upto Shamshabad.  There was no bad condition of weather.  Relying on the assumption about alleged bad weather is of no consequence and no bearing, as such the judgment is erroneous and untenable. The State Commission has not considered the checkered events taken place in the case.  The confirmed travel ticket was issued by the OPs, at Chicago to travel via London to Mumbai and then to Shamshabad and the said fact was not at all considered.   The State Commission ought to have seen that the complainant has to travel from Chicago to Shamshabad whereas the State Commission under the wrong impression that the complainant has been travelling on original ticket issued by M/s Saber Travels. In fact a new confirmed E-Ticket was issued to her to travel. At the time of issuing new ticket, there was no complaint about the weather condition and the claim made by the complainant was not at all based on the bad weather condition and it is only on deficiency of service by the OPs.

(iii)The State Commission ought to have seen that the complainant undergone mental trauma in her journey besides loosing her baggage, which contained valuables such as her project report and study material besides gifts and other articles and OPs were informed about the same. For that, the State Commission failed to appreciate that the OP No.2/United Airlines did not inform the complainant and reschedule time of the flight from Wichita to Chicago due to bad weather which was rescheduled on the ground of alleged bad weather. Had the OP No.2 informed about the bad weather and the cancellation of flight, the complainant would have cancelled her tickets to India from Wichita itself and would have stayed back in USA for some more time till the alternative arrangements made by her. The State Commission failed to appreciate that OPs-1 & 2 are being the code sharing partners, there will be a travel business understanding between OP No.1 & 2 and they jointly ought to have made alternative arrangements to the complainant to reach India by immediate alternative flights. The OP No.2 having issued the ticket to travel on 24.12.2008 from Chicago to London at 09.35 pm flight UA 938 ought to have arranged by next flight to travel through the connecting flights from London to Mumbai and Mumbai to Hyderabad. After great persuasion, the complainant got the ticket for 30th Dec, 2008 from London to Mumbai and Mumbai to Hyderabad after paying additional charges. She reached Hyderabad on 31st Dec, 2008 evening without her baggage. For that OPs-1&2 ought to have provided accommodation for 5 days in London when they failed to arrange alternative flight to the complainant to reach India and she was forced to stay there as a paying guest, she had to purchase the daily needs, clothes by spending 2000 pounds in London, prior to it she spent $500 in Chicago for telephonic bills etc. As such, the money she preserved for making payment of college fee was lost.

(iv) Both the Fora failed to appreciate due to non delivery of her baggage by the OPs, the complainant sustained loss of gift articles worth of $3000 and other daily needs and for clothing, whereas the OP No.1 offered to compensate the same for Rs.48,960/- only. From the above loss, the complainant lost her project report, which was kept in the baggage. Unless the project report submitted well in time, the university would not allow her to carry the second semester course. Thus she lost her career on account of gross negligence on the part of the OPs. Admittedly the university sent an email dated 29.01.2009 stating that "if I am not registered by 10.02.2009, my record will be terminated in the sevis system".  For that both the fora below failed to appreciate and consider the same in a proper perspective and failed to grant justifiable compensation instead of offering Rs.48,960/- mechanically. From this it is crystal clear that the value of project report which is the mile stone for her further studies have no value in the eye of Fora and said implications were not at all considered by the District Forum and the State Commission and without applying the same have nominally awarded the same.

(v) The State Commission was not correct in arriving at the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part, of OP No.2.  The State Commission without considering all the aspects dismissed the complaint under wrong and erroneous conclusion that because of weather condition the OPs are exonerated from providing any service arrangement and they have no responsibility on their part and there is no deficiency of service. The State Commission failed to appreciate that OP-2 did not challenge the order dated 14.02.2011 passed by the District Forum, which became final. The OP No.1 alone challenged the said order and the State Commission by its earlier order dated 12.02.2012 in FA No.343 of 2011 allowed the same and remanded the matter to the District Forum. For that, the State Commission was not correct in observing that "if the flights are delayed or cancelled because of bad weather, Air Traffic control, or any other cause outside of the control of the Airline, the OPs are not liable to pay any compensation or provided accommodation to the passengers." Both the OPs failed to intimate well in advance about the cancellation of the flight, having issued the alternative ticket from Chicago to London, the OP No.2 failed to issue the tickets from London to Hyderabad via Mumbai. OP-1 issued the tickets for travelling on 30.12.2008, hence, both are liable to compensate the complainant as they failed to provide the baggage, accommodation and her daily needs.

(vi) The State commission failed to appreciate that the District Forum categorically observed in para 11 of its order that there is gross negligence on the part of the OP No.2 in giving information with regard to her missing baggage, further observed that there was deficiency of service and negligence only on the part of the OP No.2 and directed the OP No.2 to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant. Though the State Commission remanded the matter to the District Forum vide order dated 12.12.2012 in FA NO.343 of 2011 filed by the OP No.1/Jet Airways only, it ought to have taken note of the observations made in paras 11, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 22 of the order dated 14.02.2011 of the District Forum as OP -2/UA did not assail the order, which has become final against it and as such the State Commission ought not to have dismissed the complaint. The complainant relied upon the judgment of this Commission reported in 2017 (1) CPJ 546 NC, it was held that  "the OP airlines have also not explained anywhere whether they took any concrete steps to take care of the passengers of their cancelled flight and to make arrangements for their travel by some alternative method. The deficiency in service on the part of the OP airlines is, therefore, writ large on the face of it, and they are liable to compensate the complainant on this score." The State Commission failed to consider the grounds raised by the complainant in her memorandum of appeal, orders passed by this Commission and written arguments filed before it. The State Commission failed to appreciate that the complainant was sick during the travelling period from 23.12.2008 to 31.12.2008, she lost her project report, she lost her career, she could not complete her MS course, she was forced to discontinue her studies because of loss of her project report and financial obligations which was due to the negligence of/on the part of the OPs 1 and 2 in not arranging the alternative flights, accommodation, financial support during her stay in London, etc. For that the complainant is entitle to claim the interest @18% on the claim amount of Rs.19,69,052/- from 23.12.2008 because both the OPs failed to provide accommodation and alternative immediate flights to reach India from Chicago. The State Commission having found that the Complainant was carrying baggage and gave the details of missing goods/articles erroneously held that no concrete proof was produced by her and would have sought to protect her luggage by way of insurance and would have kept receipts of gifts etc. For that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the OPs have not filed any documents in respect of their travel business understanding to defend their respective pleadings.

8.      Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

8.1     In addition to the averments made under grounds (para 7), the Petitioner contended that the on reaching London from Chicago on 24.12.2008 the Jet airways informed her that the OP No.2/UA did not communicate to OP No.1/Jet airways about the issuing of the boarding pass and it was informed that the tickets are not available till 30.12.2008. Having no other alternative the Petitioner was forced to stay without her luggage on her own arrangements by purchasing medicines and clothes for five days and she has been suffering from fever all these days and she has visited airport for five days to get her luggage. It is also contended that the complainant purchased a fresh ticket by making payment of difference amount for 30th through Jet Airways/OP No.1 and reached Hyderabad airport on 31.12.2008 without her check in baggage. The complainant sent mail to the OPs intimating about the non receipt of the baggage containing gift articles worth of $3000, her project report and daily need items, etc. The complainant received a response from the OP No.2 stating that they will look into the matter. The complainant sent a reminder to do the needful on priority basis because her college was reopening on 21.01.2009. OP No.2/UA stated that they are unable to provide the reimbursement and compensation. The complainant sent letters dated 18.01.2009 and 23.01.2009 to the OP No.1 as she did not receive her baggage till date. OP No.1/Jet airways sent a cheque for Rs.48960/ in the name of her mother Smt. Dandu Varalakshmi instead of her name, with a letter towards final settlement for loss of baggage, which was not encashed as the matter is pending for settlement. She came to know through world Tracer that her luggage was received by airport but the same was not delivered to her. Legal notice was sent to the OPs demanding an amount of Rs.19,60,052/- but received no reply from the OPs. Hence filed complaint was filed claiming Rs.19,69,052/- against the OPs.1 and 2 for loss of education, loss of articles and project report in the baggage, expenses spent in Chicago airport, expenses incurred in London for five days, etc. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP NO.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.16,28,604/- to the complainant and cost of Rs.10,000/-. The OP No.1/Jet Airways alone filed an appeal, FA no.343 of 2011 and the State Commission allowed the same and remanded the matter to the District Forum for fresh disposal after accepting their written version. The OP No.1/Jet airways stated in their written version that they have sent a cheque for Rs.48,960/-  towards final settlement for loss of baggage. The OP-2/UA has to pay the damages and compensation to the complainant, if any. It was further contended that both OPs-1 & 2 are code sharing partners as such both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the complainant. After remand, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP No.2/UA to pay Rs.10,00,000/- and OP-1/Jet airways to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the OP-2/United Airlines alone filed appeal, and dissatisfied with the award, the complainant also filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the Appeal filed the United Airlines/OP-.2 and dismissed the Appeal filed by the complainant and also dismissed the complaint. Hence, the Complainant filed the present Revision Petitions. It is further contended that OP-2 failed to inform the complainant about the reschedule of the flight from Wichita to Chicago due to bad weather. Had the OP No.2 informed about the bad weather and the cancellation of flight, the complainant would have cancelled her tickets to India from Wichita itself and would have stayed back in USA for some more time till the alternative arrangements made by her. Because of non co-ordination between OPs-1 & 2, she was forced to stay back in London for 5 days and daily visited airport to get her luggage but in vain. Finally she got the ticket for 30th Dec, 2008 and reached Hyderabad on 31st Dec, 2008 evening without her baggage. She lost her project report which was kept in the baggage. Unless the project report is submitted well in time, the university would not allow her to carry the second semester course. Thus she lost her career and as well fees paid and expenditure incurred for staying and studying of the semester. The OP airlines have also not explained anywhere whether they took any concrete steps to take care of the passengers of their cancelled flight and to make arrangements for their travel by some alternative method. The deficiency in service on the part of the OP airlines is, therefore, writ large on the face of it, and they are liable to compensate the complainant on this score.

8.2 On the other hand, Respondent-2 contended that the aforesaid Revision Petitions are sub-judice before this Commission wherein, the Petitioner has challenged the Final Order/ Judgement dated 09.10.2017, passed by the State Commission. It is contended that the State Commission vide its well-reasoned Order/ Judgement allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent-2 and set aside the order of the District Forum. It is further contended that the Flight bearing No. UA 6017 from Wichita to Chicago having scheduled departure at 10.30 AM and its connecting flight was scheduled at 4.08 PM on 23.12.2008. The flight bearing UA No. 6017 was delayed due to bad weather by 264 Mins i.e., 4.5 Hrs from Wichita (ICT) to Chicago (ORD). The said delay of flight falls within definition of Force Majeure Event and in such condition, whatever quantum of delay is there, the United Airlines would not have any liability as per law. Regarding any Evidence/ Document which will clearly show that the said delay was on account of bad weather due to which ATC did not give clearance, it was contended that the Flight bearing UA No. 6017, having scheduled departure from Wichita to Chicago on 23.12.2008 was delayed due to bad weather and in support of it two reports were adduced along with the Letter dated 16.07.2010 sent by the Respondent-2 to the Petitioner. It is further contended that in that letter the daily operations report for 23.12.2008 states- "Weather and Air Traffic irregularities", which shows that there was snow throughout the day at Chicago (ORD) which caused a ground stop and therefore, Flight had a delay at (Wichita) ICT. Thus, due to non-clearance of Air Traffic Control (ATC) the Flight UA No. 6017 was delayed, which is not attributable to Respondent-2. To the query regarding ‘Guidelines of airlines showing that even if there is a delay due to valid reasons due to which if passenger misses a connecting flight at the arrival airport, the airline is not obligated to provide hotel accommodation to the passenger and if such instructions exist, whether these have been intimated to the passengers either in the form of conditions on the ticket or otherwise’ – it is contended that  the delay in the present case is due to bad weather and same falls within the definition of Force Majeure Event of the United Airlines Contract of Carriage. As per United Airlines, INC., Contract of Carriage-Rule 24 Clause (D) - "Force Majeure Event - In the event of a Force Majeure Event, UA without notice, may cancel, terminate, divert, postpone, or delay any flight, right of carriage or reservations (whether or not confirmed) and determine if any departure or landing should be made, without any liability on the part of UA. UA may re-accommodate Passengers on another available UA flight or on another carrier or combination of carriers, or via ground transportation, or may refund, in its sole discretion, any unused portions of the Ticket in the form of a travel certificate or travel credit." Therefore, the delay was not due to any deficiency in service on the part of Respondent-2 but was due to the reasons beyond their control and for the same no liability arises upon the them and thus, the Respondent-2 cannot be held responsible. It is a settled principle of law that no liability arises in situations where the service provider could not successfully render service due to Act of God or Force Majure, covering situations like- thunderstorms, earthquakes, bad weather, etc. The Respondent-2 had taken all precautions and considering the circumstances and in all good faith, and as per terms of Carriage Rules, the Respondent-2 issued the petitioner with the relevant tickets for her onward journey, which the petitioner also accepted. The action of the Respondent-2 was in good faith and in accordance with its Carriage Rules. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent-2 as they performed their duty diligently and hence, there is  no role to play in granting compensation to the Petitioner.

9.       We have carefully considered the order of State Commission, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties. The Appellant have contended that OP-1 and OP-2 are code sharing partners.  However, records do not show that tickets in the present case were issued by OP-2 (United Airlines) as Code-shared flight numbers for the part of journey segments which were operated by OP-1 (Jet Airways). In fact flight number of OP-1show other way round.  The terms and conditions of OP-2 define code-share as follows:

“Codeshare means an arrangement by which UA offers transportation service to a Passenger who is ticketed with the two letter airline designator code “UA” on a flight that is operated by a carrier other than UA.”

10.     In the present case the OP-1 operated tickets were number 9W 0119 (From London to Mumbai and 9W 0453 from Mumbai to Hyderabad) which is OP-1’s own number, and not the OP-2’s number which start with UA.  Flight from Wichita to Chicago (UA 6017) and from Chicago to London (UA 0958) were by OP-2.  There is no denying the fact that notwithstanding that it was due to force majeure reasons/bad weather/ATC non-clearance reasons that flight of OP-2 on 23.12.2008 from Wichita to Chicago got delayed, the Complainant was put on next flight on the next day only i.e. 24.12.2008 and the Complainant had to stay at Chicago Airport from 7-30 p.m. on 23.12.2008 till 9-35 A.M. on 24.12.2008.  Hence, in our considered view, notwithstanding the terms and conditions of OP-2, under which they were not liable to pay any compensation to Complainant on account of delayed arrival of flight at Chicago, but they were under obligation to do facilitation of Complainant at Chicago, which include providing meals and accommodation for the intervening night of 23.12.2008 & 24.12.2008, which they have not provided.  It is well-known fact that terms & conditions of Airlines for such travels are generally one-sided, unilaterally decided by the Airlines, the passenger having absolutely no choice of changing any clause whatsoever, and is in a situation of either ‘take it’ or ‘leave it’, hence passenger, at the time of booking the tickets, generally will not go into the finer details of such terms & conditions and will sign such terms & conditions without even thoroughly reading and understanding each and every clause of such terms & conditions, and generally go by the most important conditions told to them.  Hence, the least any passenger can expect from Airlines is that in case of delays, even if Airlines are not responsible for such delays, provide the requisite facilitation to passengers affected by such delays, including providing refreshments, accommodation where night stay becomes necessary due to such delays and facilitate rebooking of missed flights etc. due to such delays.  Any failure on the part of Airlines to do such facilitation amounts to deficiency in service.  In Interglobe Aviation Ltd. Vs. N. Satchidanand (2011) 7 SCC, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that where the delay is for reasons beyond the control of Airlines due to bad weather and want of clearance from ATC, in the absence of proof of negligence or deficiency in service; the airlines cannot be held responsible for the inconvenience caused to the passengers on account of delay.  However, Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed, even if no compensation is payable for the delay on account of bad weather or other conditions beyond the control of the air carrier, the airline will be liable to pay compensation if it fails to offer the minimum facilitation.  In Ravneet Singh Bagga V. KLM Royal Airlines (2000) 1 SCC 66, it was observed that duty of airlines to provide basic facilitation would prevail over any term of the contract excluding any facilitation. Rule 24 of terms and conditions of Transportation of persons and baggage provided by OP-2 United Airlines deal with delays/cancellations/air-craft changes.  Relevant extract of which is given below:

“Rule 24 Flight Delays/Cancellations/Aircraft Changes

1. General

1. U.S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flights originate in the U.S.A., the provisions of this Rule apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight that incurs a Schedule Change, Force Majeure Event or Irregular Operations.
2. Non-U.S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flight originates outside the U.S.A., the following provisions apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight:

1. If local or international laws regulate a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will not be applied.

2. If no local law otherwise regulates a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will be applied.

3. Schedules are Subject To Change Without Notice - Times shown on tickets, timetables, published schedules or elsewhere, and aircraft type and similar details reflected on tickets or UA’s schedule are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. UA may substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, delay or cancel flights, and alter or omit stopping places or connections shown on the ticket at any time. UA will promptly provide Passengers the best available information regarding known delays, cancellations, misconnections and diversions, but UA is not liable for any misstatements or other errors or omissions in connection with providing such information. No employee, agent or representative of UA can bind UA legally by reason of any statements relating to flight status or other information. Except to the extent provided in this Rule, UA shall not be liable for failing to operate any flight according to schedule, or for any change in flight schedule, with or without notice to the passenger.

2. Definitions - For the purpose of this Rule, the following terms have the meanings below:
   1. Schedule Change – an advance change in UA’s schedule (including a change in operating carrier or itinerary) that is not a unique event such as Irregular Operations or Force Majeure Event as defined below.
   2. Connecting Point – a point to which a Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of one carrier and out of which the Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of the same or another carrier. All airports through which a city is served by any carrier will be deemed to be a single Connecting Point when the receiving carrier has confirmed reservations to the Delivering Carrier.

3. Delivering Carrier – a carrier on whose flight a Passenger holds or held confirmed space to a Connecting Point.

4. Force Majeure Event – any of the following situations:

1. Any condition beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, meteorological or geological conditions, acts of God, riots, terrorist activities, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, or unsettled international conditions, either actual, anticipated, threatened or reported, or any delay, demand, circumstances, or requirement due directly or indirectly to such condition;
2. Any strike, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout, or any other labor-related dispute involving or affecting UA’s services;
3. Any governmental regulation, demand or requirement;
4. Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;
5. Damage to UA’s Aircraft or equipment caused by another party;
6. Any emergency situation requiring immediate care or protection for a person or property; or Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.5.Misconnection – occurs at a Connecting Point when a Passenger holding confirmed space on an Original Receiving Carrier is unable to use such confirmed space because the Delivering Carrier was unable to deliver him/her to the Connecting Point in time to connect with the Original Receiving Carrier’s flight.NOTE: The same rules regarding Delivering and Original Receiving Carrier responsibilities apply at the subsequent point(s) of Misconnection as would apply at the point of original Misconnection.6.Original Receiving Carrier(s) – a carrier or combination of connecting carriers on whose flight(s) a Passenger originally held or holds confirmed space from a Connecting Point to a destination, next Stopover or Connecting Point.7.Irregular Operations – any of the following irregularities: a.Delay in scheduled departure or arrival of a carrier’s flight resulting in a Misconnection;b.Flight or service cancellation, omission of a scheduled stop, or any other delay or interruption in the scheduled operation of a carrier’s flight;c.Substitution of aircraft type that provides different classes of service or different seat configurations; d.Schedule changes which require Rerouting of Passengers at departure time of the original flight; or e.Cancellation of a reservation by UA pursuant to Rule 5.

EXCEPTION: UA shall have no obligation to honour another carrier’s ticket that does not reflect a confirmed reservation on UA, unless the issuing carrier reissues the ticket for any changes in routing.  In the event such carrier is not available to do so, UA reserves the right to reroute passengers only over its on original ticket.

3. Schedule Change - When a Passenger’s Ticketed flight is affected because of a Schedule Change that modifies the original departure and/or arrival time by 30 minutes or more, UA will, at its election, arrange one of the following:

1. Transport the Passenger on its closest available flight to the Destination, next Stopover point, or transfer point shown on its portion of the Ticket, without Stopover in the same class of service (subject to availability), at no additional cost to the Passenger; provided that if such alternate transportation results in a significant change to the originally scheduled departure or arrival times and the Passenger chooses not to accept such alternate transportation, United will (at the Passenger’s request) provide a refund;

2. When a Schedule Change results in the cancellation of all UA service between two cities, at UA’s sole discretion, UA may reroute Passengers over the lines of one or more carriers in an equivalent class of service; provided that if such alternate transportation results in a significant change to the originally scheduled departure or arrival times and the Passenger chooses not to accept such alternate transportation, United will (at the Passenger’s request) provide a refund;
3. Advise the Passenger that the value of his or her Ticket may be applied toward future travel on United within one year from the date of issue without a change or reissue fee; or

4. If the Passenger is not offered transportation as provided in C) 1) or 2) above and does not choose to apply the value of his or her Ticket toward future travel as provided in C) 3) above, the Passenger will be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A).

4. Force Majeure Event - In the event of a Force Majeure Event, UA without notice, may cancel, terminate, divert, postpone, or delay any flight, right of carriage or reservations (whether or not confirmed) and determine if any departure or landing should be made, without any liability on the part of UA. UA may re-accommodate Passengers on another available UA flight or on another carrier or combination of carriers, or via ground transportation, or may refund, in its sole discretion, any unused portions of the Ticket in the form of a travel certificate or travel credit.

5. Irregular Operations

1. Liability - Except to the extent provided in this Rule and the Warsaw and/or Montreal Conventions, UA shall not be liable for any Irregular Operations.

2. Delay, Misconnection or Cancellation
   1. When a Passenger’s ticket is affected because of Irregular Operations caused by UA, UA will take the following measures:

1. Transport the Passenger on its own flights, subject to availability, to the Destination, next Stopover point, or transfer point shown on its portion of the Ticket, without Stopover in the same class of service, at no additional cost to the Passenger; or

2. At its sole discretion, UA may arrange for the passenger to travel on another carrier. United may also, at its sole discretion, and if acceptable to the passenger, arrange for the passenger to travel via ground transportation.

2. In the event a Passenger misses an onward connecting flight on which space is reserved because the Delivering Carrier did not operate its flight due to Irregular Operations or a Schedule Change, the Delivering Carrier is responsible to arrange for carriage of the Passenger or to make a refund.

3. If a Passenger is not transported as provided in E) 2) above, the Passenger will be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A).

4. If space is only available and used on a UA flight(s) of a lower class of service than originally purchased by the passenger, UA will provide a refund of the difference in fare pursuant to Rule 27 C) 5).

6. Amenities for Delayed Passengers
   1. Lodging - UA will provide at its option either one night’s lodging, or, if no lodging is provided and upon the passenger’s request only, reimbursement for one night’s lodging in the form of an electronic travel certificate that may be applied to future travel on UA up to a maximum amount determined by UA when a UA flight on which a Passenger is being transported incurs Irregular Operations and the Passenger incurs a delay that is expected to exceed four hours between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. local time. Where lodging has been offered but not accepted by a Passenger for whatever reason, UA is not liable to reimburse the Passenger for expenses relating to alternative lodging secured independently by the Passenger.

EXCEPTION: Lodging will not be furnished:

1. To a Passenger whose trip is interrupted at a city which is his/her permanent domicile, origin point, or stopover point, or

2. When the destination city airport that is designated on the Passenger’s Ticket and the city airport that the Passenger is diverted to are both within the following city groups:

1. Baltimore, MD (BWI)/Washington D.C. Dulles IAD)/Washington D.C. National (DCA)
2. Brownsville, TX (BRO/Harlingen, TX (HRL)/McAllen, TX (MFE)
3. Burbank, CA (BUR)/Los Angeles, CA (LAX)/Ontario, CA (ONT)/Orange County, CA (SNA)/Long Beach, CA (LGB)
4. Chicago, IL O’Hare (ORD)/Chicago, IL Midway (MDW)/Milwaukee, WI (MKE)
5. Colorado Springs, CO (COS)/Denver, CO (DEN)
6. Dallas, TX Dallas-Ft. Worth International (DFW)/Dallas, TX Love Field (DAL)
7. Ft. Lauderdale, FL (FLL)/Miami, FL (MIA)/West Palm Beach, FL (PBI)
8. Houston, TX Bush Intercontinental (IAH)/Houston, TX Ellington AFB (EFD)/Houston, TX Hobby(HOU)
9. Oakland, CA (OAK)/San Francisco, CA (SFO)/San Jose, CA (SJC)
10. Newark, NJ Newark International (EWR)/New York, NY La Guardia (LGA)/New York, NY Kennedy (JFK)/White Plains, NY (HPN)
11. London, UK Gatwick (LGW)/London, UK Heathrow (LHR)

3. When such interruption is due to circumstances outside UA’s control.

2. Snacks and Meals - UA will provide snacks and/or food and beverage vouchers in the event of an extensive delay caused by UA. Where food and beverage vouchers have been offered but not accepted by a Passenger for whatever reason, UA is not liable to reimburse the Passenger for expenses relating to food and beverage secured independently by the Passenger.

3. Ground Transportation - When lodging is furnished in accordance with 1) above and ground transportation is not furnished by the hotel, UA will provide ground transportation to the place of lodging via public conveyance. Rule 17 also governs any provision of ground transportation to a place of lodging. Where ground transportation has been offered but not accepted by a Passenger for whatever reason, UA is not liable to reimburse the Passenger for expenses relating to alternative ground transportation secured by the Passenger.

4. The sole and exclusive remedy for a passenger who has a claim under this Rule shall be the express amenities provided in this Rule. The passenger shall have no other claims or law or equity for actual, compensatory, or punitive damages. The provision of services in addition to those specifically set forth in this Rule to all or some passengers shall not be construed as a waiver of UA’s rights or an expansion of its obligations. Neither shall any delay on the part of UA in exercising or enforcing its rights under this Rule be construed as a waiver of such rights.

7. Carrier in Default – Notwithstanding the provisions of this Rule, UA  will not accept for any purposes passenger tickets or related transportation documents issued by any carrier that is in substantial default of its Interline obligations or that voluntarily or involuntarily has become the subject of bankruptcy proceedings (the “Defaulting Carrier”).

EXCEPTION: Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, tickets issued by the Defaulting Carrier or its sales agent prior to the default will be accepted solely for transportation over the lines of UA provided such tickets were issued by such Defaulting Carrier in its capacity as agent for UA and specified transportation via UA. When tickets are accepted, no adjustments in fare will be made that would require UA to refund money to the passenger.

8. In the event of a strike or work stoppage which causes any cancellation or suspension of operations of any other carrier, the provisions of this Rule will not apply with respect to passengers holding tickets for transportation on that carrier.

1. “Class of service” in this Contract of Carriage refers to classes of service as determined by UA without regard to the specific level of ancillary services or amenities provided in that class of service (as compared to any originally scheduled flight). Any ancillary service or amenity, including but not limited to live television, wi-fi services, priority boarding, advance seat assignments, and meal service, are not guaranteed. Regardless of whether there is a Schedule Change, Irregular Operations, Force Majeure Event, or other change or circumstance that results in an ancillary service or amenity not being available on any flight, UA shall have no liability for, and shall owe no refund with respect to any failure to provide that amenity or ancillary service.

 EXCEPTION: If a Passenger has paid for a specific ancillary service or amenity in advance of the flight as a separate fee specifically designated for such ancillary service or amenity and that ancillary service or amenity is not provided, the Passenger is eligible for a refund of the amount paid if a refund request is made within 90 days of the date the fee was originally paid or the flight date, whichever is later. UA is not liable to refund this fee otherwise eligible for refund if the request is received after that time.”

11.     Director General of Civil Aviation has issued Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) (Section 3-Air Transport Series M Part IV, Issue 1, dated 06.08.2010 under the provisions of Rule 133A of the Aircraft Rules 1937 with respect to facilities to be provided by airlines due to denied boarding, cancellation of flight and delays in flights, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below:

“1.4 The operating airline would not have the obligation to pay compensation in cases where the cancellations and delays have been caused by an event(s) of force majeure i.e. extraordinary circumstance(s) beyond the control of the airline, the impact of which lead to the cancellation/delay of flight(s), and which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken by the airline. Such extraordinary circumstances may in particular, occur due to political instability, natural disaster, civil war, insurrection or riot, flood, explosion, government regulation or order affecting the aircraft, strikes and labour disputes causing cessation, slowdown or interruption of work or any other factors that are beyond the control of the airline.

1.5     Additionally, airlines would also not be liable to pay any compensation in respect of cancellations and delays clearly attributable to Air Traffic Control (ATC), meteorological conditions, security risks, or any other causes that are beyond the control of the airline but which affect their ability to operate flights on schedule. Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft or several aircraft on a particular day, gives rise to a long delay or delays, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, and which could not be avoided even though the airline concerned had taken all reasonable measures to avoid or overcome of the impact of the relevant factor and, therefore, the delays or cancellations.

3.4  Delays in Flight

3.4.1 The airlines shall provide facilities in accordance with Para 3.8.1 (a) if the passenger has checked in on time, and if the airline expects a delay beyond its original announced scheduled time of departure or a revised time of departure.

of:

a) 2 hours or more in case of flights having a block time of up to 2 ½ hrs; or

b) 3 hours or more in case of flights having a block time of more than 2 ½ hrs and up to 5 hours; or

c) 4 hours or more in case of flights not falling under sub-para (a) and (b) of Para 3.4.1.

3.4.2 When domestic flight is expected to be delayed for more than 6 hrs from the published scheduled time of departure or previously revised departure time (communicated more than 24 hours prior to original scheduled departure time), airlines shall offer an option of either an alternate flight within a period of 6 hours or full refund of ticket to the passenger.

3.4.3 When total delay is more than 24 hrs from the published scheduled time of departure or more than 6 hrs for flights scheduled to depart between 2000 and 0300 hrs, passenger shall be offered facility in accordance with the provisions of Para 3.8.1 (b) of this CAR.

3.4.4 An operating airline shall not be obliged to adhere to Para 3.8 if the delay is caused due to extra ordinary circumstances as defined in Para 1.4 and Para 1.5 which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

3.4.5 The burden of proof concerning the questions as to whether and when the passenger has been informed of the delay of the flight shall rest with the operating airline.

xxxx

3.6     Compensation by Foreign Carriers

3.6.1  In the case of foreign carriers, the amount of compensation paid to the passengers shall be as contained in the regulations of their country of origin or as given in para 3.2.2/3.3.2/3.5.1 of this CAR.

                                                           xxxx

3.8     Facilities to be offered to Passengers

3.8.1 Passengers shall be offered free of charge the following:

a) Meals and refreshments in relation to waiting time.

b) Hotel Accommodation when necessary (including transfers).

3.8.2 Airlines shall pay particular attention to the needs of persons with reduced mobility and any other person (s) accompanying them.

                                                xxxx

3.10.2 The  airlines  shall  display  their  policies  in  regard  to  compensation,

refunds and the facilities that will be provided by the airline in the event of denied boardings, cancellations and delays on their respective websites as part of their passenger Charter of Rights. Passengers shall be fully informed by the airlines of their rights in the event of denied boarding, cancellations or delays of their flights so that they can effectively exercise their rights provided at the time of making bookings/ticketing, they have given adequate contact information to the airline or their agents. The obligation of airlines to fully inform the passenger(s) shall be included in ticketing documents and websites of the airlines and concerned third parties (GDS and travel agents) issuing such documents on airlines’ behalf.

3.10.3         Airline shall display policy on their respective websites about passenger handling in the event of cancellation and delays. Airline counters at airports shall disseminate reasons of cancellation and delays to the affected passengers and attend to their grievances.”

12.     Even the European Parliament have issued certain Regulations (EC No. 261/2004), dated 11.02.2004, establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights.  Though not applicable in the present case, extract of relevant portions of which is given below:

“Article 1

Subject

1. This Regulation establishes, under the conditions specified herein, minimum rights for passengers when:

(a) they are denied boarding against their will;

(b) their flight is cancelled;

(c)  their flight is delayed

Article 3

Scope

1.  This Regulation shall apply:

a.   to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a   

     Member State to which the Treaty applies:

b.  to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an

    airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a

    Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or

    compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the

   operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier.

                                                           xxxx

Article 5

Cancellation

1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall:

(a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8; and

(b) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2), as well as, in event of re- routing when the reasonably expected time of departure of the new flight is at least the day after the departure as it was planned for the cancelled flight, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and

(c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7, unless:

(i) they are informed of the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure; or

(ii) they are informed of the cancellation between two weeks and seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than two hours before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than four hours after the scheduled time of arrival: or

(iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re- routing, allowing them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival.

2.  When passengers are informed of the cancellation, an explanation shall be given concerning possible alternative transport.

3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

4. The burden of proof concerning the questions as to whether and when the passenger has been informed of the cancellation of the flight shall rest with the operating air carrier.

Article 6

Delay

1.       When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departure:

(a) for two hours or more in the case of flights of 1500 kilometres or less; or

(b) for three hours or more in the case of all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres and of all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres: or

(c) for four hours or more in the case of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),

  passengers shall be offered by the operating air carrier:

(i) the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2): and

(ii) when the reasonably expected time of departure is at least the day after the time of departure previously announced, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and

(iii) when the delay is at least five hours, the assistance specified in Article 8(1)(a).

2. In any event, the assistance shall be offered within the time limits set out above with respect to each distance bracket.                                                   

                                                      Article 7

Right to compensation

1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall receive compensation amounting to:

(a) EUR 250 for all flights of 1500 kilometres or less;

(b) EUR 400 for all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres, and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres;

(c) EUR 600 for all flights not falling under (a) or (b).

In determining the distance, the basis shall be the last destination at which the denial of boarding or cancellation will delay the passenger's arrival after the scheduled time.

2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked.

(a) by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1500 kilometres or less; or

(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of more than 1500

      kilometres and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres: or

(c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b).

the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50%.

3. The compensation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be paid in cash, by electronic bank transfer, bank orders or bank cheques or, with the signed agreement of the passenger, in travel vouchers and/or other services.

4. The distances given in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be measured by the great circle route method.

Article 8

Right to reimbursement or re-routing

1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between:

(a) -   reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article

7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the  part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with, when relevant,

- a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity: (b)    

   re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination    

   at the carliest opportunity; or TRUE

(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination

     at the earliest opportunity: or

(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination

     at a later date at the passenger’s convenience, subject to availability of     

    seats.

2. Paragraph 1(a) shall also apply to passengers whose flights form part of a    

    package, except for the right to reimbursement where such right arises under    

    Directive 90/314/EEC.

3. When, in the case where a town, city or region is served by several airports, an operating air carrier offers a passenger a flight to an airport alternative to that for which the booking was made, the operating air carrier shall bear the cost of transferring the passenger from that alternative airport either to that for which the booking was made, or to another close-by destination agreed with the passenger.

Article 9

Right to care

1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered free of charge:

(a) meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time:

(b) hotel accommodation in cases

 - where a stay of one or more nights becomes necessary. оr

 - where a stay additional to that intended by the passenger becomes necessary:

(c) transport between the airport and place of accommodation (hotel or other).

2. In addition, passengers shall be offered free of charge two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails.

3. In applying this Article, the operating air carrier shall pay particular attention to the needs of persons with reduced mobility and any persons accompanying them, as well as to the needs of unaccompanied children.”

13.     In the present case, on account of delayed arrival of flight of OP-2 from Wichita to Chicago on 23.12.2008, and OP-2 re-scheduling her flight from Chicago to London on 24.12.2008, OP-2 issued boarding pass to Complainant informing her that she can travel by OP-1 (Jet Airways Flight 9W 117) on 25.12.2008 from London.  OP-2 sated to have informed the Complainant that they cannot provide accommodation to her at London.  However, when Complainant landed at 11-05 A.M. at London, she was informed that her name was not listed in the flight 9W 117 that day/night flight.  The Complainant’s baggage also went missing.

14.     The State Commission in its order dated 09.10.2017 has observed as follows:

“13. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief.

14. The counsel for the opposite party no.2 would contend that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no cause of action arose in Ranga Reddy District. On the other hand, it is the contention of the complainant that the office of opposite party no.1 is situated within the limits of Ranga Reddy District and moreover Hyderabad is the destination point as per the ticket booked by the complainant and hence the District Forum Ranga Reddy had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

15. We are afraid, these objections of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have to be over-ruled, firstly on the ground that the same objections were raised before the fora below and have been dealt with at length. On the question of territorial jurisdiction objection has been rightly rejected as the complainant landed at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport and the Branch Office of the opposite party no.1 is situated at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad, R.R.District and, therefore, clearly a part of cause of action arose at Ranga Reddy District.

16. The next contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant paid the journey ticket charges to Saber Travels at Wichita at US. Due to the delayed start of the flight at Wichita, the complainant has missed the connecting flights at Chicago and London. In the circumstances, the delayed start of the flight at Wichita goes to show that M/s Saber Travels is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings. It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the tickets from one Saber Travels who sold the tickets of the opposite parties and there is no dispute regarding purchase of tickets and the dispute is with regard to the delay of the flight arranged by the opposite party no.2.

17. The next contention of the opposite party no.2 is that as per Rule 19 of the Carriage by Air Act 1972 the operating carrier would not be liable to pay compensation to a passenger in respect of either cancellation or delays attributable to meteorological conditions or air traffic control directions/instructions which are beyond the control of the carrier. In this case the delay was due to bad weather and want of clearance from ATC and the reasons are beyond control of the airlines. In support of its contention it has filed Exs.B2 to B4. Further, if the complainant lost her baggage containing important documents, it cannot be made liable for the same as per Rule 28(K)(3) of the Contract of Carriage.

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd. vs. N. Satchinand reported in (2011) 7 SCC, 463, has held: ………

xxxx

19. Now remains the only deficiency attributed on the part of opposite party no.2 is regarding non-providing of boarding and lodging to the complainant. The complainant has stated that the second respondent disowned its liability to provide accommodation to her at Chicago and the opposite party no.2 has not provided accommodation at London on the premise that it was not at fault. On the other hand the opposite party no.2 contended that their only responsibility is to issue alternative tickets for the connecting flights missed by the passenger but not to provide accommodations, payments or reimbursements when the flights are delayed or cancelled because of bad weather, Air Traffic Control or any other cause outside the control of the Airline. The Directorate  General of Civil Aviation (DCGA) and applicability of Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) under Section 3, say that airlines should provide facilities to passengers affected by cancellation or delay in flights for more than three hours. It states, Airlines are supposed to provide compensation and other benefits to passengers, including food and beverages, in case of delays. The airlines will not be under any obligation in case the delay is on account of things that are beyond its control like political unrest, bad weather, air traffic problems, or technical problem." If the missed connection is the airline's fault (a delayed flight or mechanical problems, for example), the airline should re-book you on the next available flight. If the next outbound flight is the following morning, the airline should either book you on any other airline or provide accommodations and meals. But these arrangements are voluntary with the airline; they're not mandated by any law or regulation. If inclement weather causes you to miss your connection, the airline will help you re-book but likely won't offer any compensation for meals or accommodations. It is also pertinent to note that as the opposite party no.2 does not have direct flights to India, it had re-issue of alternate tickets for the complainant on some other flight on some other airline which takes the complainant to Hyderabad. Airlines have no responsibility for missed connections on two separate tickets. Therefore, the opposite party no.2 will not take responsibility for actions of the opposite party no. 1. Bad weather and mechanical problems are obviously beyond the control of the airliners and they are nothing to do for such delay. It is therefore clear from the above discussion, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the DGCA Guidelines if the flights are delayed or cancelled because of bad weather, Air Traffic Control, or any other cause outside of the control of the Airline, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation or provide accommodation to the passengers. 

xxxx

24. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the opposite parties and the complainant, and the evidence, on record, and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Honb'le National Commission along with rules 22, 23 and 25 of Carriage by Air Act, we are of the considered opinion undisputedly, the complainant travelled from Wichita to India, through the opposite parties Airlines. The complainant was carrying baggages, containing gifts, project report and her certificates relating to further studies besides cloths, brush, contact numbers of her cousin etc., in her main luggage. No doubt, the complainant gave the details of the missing goods/articles, but no concrete proof was produced by her. If the contents of the luggage have been of such value, the complainant would have sought to protect her luggage by way of insurance or would have kept receipts of gifts etc. purchased by her from customs and otherwise. The complainant also did not mention the missing items in her Property Irregularity Report that is filed by the complainant vide Ex.A6. The complainant has only mentioned about her two bags to be missing and that the particulars column has been left blank. As per the Carriage by Air Act and according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Rules, the reimbursement for the missing baggage was based on US$ 20.00 per kilogram. Accordingly the opposite party no.1 offered to compensate in terms of the weight loss of her missing baggage to the extent of Rs.48,960/-. Having accepted the said amount by way of cheque in her name, the complainant cannot now turn back to file complaint seeking compensation against the opposite parties. Not only that the complainant requested to issue the cheque in the name of her mother and the opposite party no.1 considered her request issued cheque in the name of her mother but the complainant did not encash the said cheque nor returned the same to the opposite party no.1. There was, therefore, no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties. The District Forum without any cogent reason committed error in allowing complaint with exorbitant compensation though the opposite party no.1 shown its bonafides by paying the compensation to the complainant.

25. For the reasons recorded above we are of the considered opinion that the appeal F.A.No.40 of 2014 filed by the opposite party no.2 is liable to be allowed and the appeal F.A.No.45 of 2014 filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.”

15.     District Forum in its order dated 20.12.2013 has observed as follows:

“6. In the beginning, this case was disposed of by this Forum and partly allowed the claim of the complainant. At that time, the first Opposite Party remained ex-parte. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.1 preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission in F.A. No.343/2011 and the matter has been remanded to this Forum after hearing both sides for giving an opportunity to Opposite Party No.1 to contest the case.

xxxx

11. Point No.3: Admittedly, the complainant booked the tickets through the Opposite Parties as mentioned below:

-1) Wichita to Chicago Opposite Party No.2 flight at 10.30 a.m. on    

     23.12.2008

-2) Chicago to London - Opposite Party No.2 flight at 4.08 p.m. on  

     23.12.2008

-3) London to Mumbai - Opposite Party No. 1 flight at 10.05 a.m. on

    24.12.2008

-4) Mumbai to Hyderabad through Opposite Party No.1 flight

Ex.A1 ticket goes to show the above details of the journey. It is not disputed by Opposite Party No.2 that their flight which was supposed to be started at 10.30 a.m. from Wichita was delayed and it started at 5.30 p.m. Consequent to the delay, the flight of Opposite Party No.2 at Chicago was missed to the complainant and the customer service people of Opposite Party No.2 gave ticket to the complainant on 24^th flight UA 938 to go to London. Therefore, the complainant had to stay at Chicago from 7.30 p.m. of 23rd till next day i.e. 24^th  at 9.35 p.m. It is stated by the complainant in her Evidence Affidavit that she was faced much inconvenience and hardship as she was not provided accommodation at Chicago though she was sick and boarding pass was only given to her to board the flight on 24^th night. The complainant landed at London at 11.05 a.m. from Chicago through the flight of Opposite Party No.2 on 25^th. It is further stated by the complainant that she was told by the staff of Opposite Party No.2 that she could catch flight No.117 of Opposite Party No.1 on the night of 25^th. She further alleged that her name was not listed on the said flight 117. The Opposite Party No.1 has no responsibility to the inconvenience or hardship caused to the complainant till she reached London.

The other grievance of the complainant is that she had to stay at London as she missed the flight of Opposite Party No.1 on 24^th and she was given ticket only on 30^th through Opposite Party No.1 flight from London to Mumbai as evidenced by Ex.A2. It is stated by the complainant that her cousin had also to buy ticket along with her on 30^th  due to her illness. She also stated that fortunately she had VISA to stay at London for about one week even though her journey was postponed. She categorically stated that her whole journey was ruined due to the wrong information given by Opposite Party No.2 people at Chicago. It is the further version of the complainant that after purchasing tickets, she enquired Opposite Party No.2 about her luggage and she was informed that the luggage was transferred to Opposite Party No.1 on 25^th itself. The complainant further stated in her Evidence Affidavit that she enquired at the Airport of London from 25th to 29th about her luggage and in that connection she had to spend huge amount towards travelling expenses. All these days she spent all her money she had for her next semester college fees. She was advised by Opposite Party No.1 Manager Kiran on 29^th that the baggage was not received by them and to give a complaint at Mumbai. It is further stated by the complainant that she filed a case at Mumbai and subsequently she got information that one bag was traced by Opposite Party No.2 at Houston. She also gave a complaint at London in this regard. Ex.A6 is the Property Irregularity Report (PIR) given by her on 30.12.2008 at Opposite Party No.1. Ex.A7 is the mail sent to Opposite Party No.1 on 07.01.2009 about her missing luggage. Ex.A8 is the copy sent to united@interglobe.com on 08.01.2009. Ex.A9 is the reply given by Opposite Party No.2 wherein they stated that the details were sent to their Baggage Department for tracing. Ex.A10 is the similar correspondence made by Opposite Party No.2. Later on 14.01.2009, Opposite Party No.2 informed to the complainant under Ex.All letter that under the terms of Global Airlines Agreement, the terminating carrier is responsible for handling any baggage difficulty that might arise, regardless of fault. Therefore, the complainant was advised to make correspondence with Opposite Party No.1 only.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 that the flight was delayed at Wichita Airport due to bad weather and could only depart at 5.30 p.m. as per the instructions given by Air Traffic Control which is operated by the US Federal Aviation Administration. He filed Ex.B2 to B4 to show the same. The learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 also relied upon a decision reported in 1997 CPJ 32 (NC) wherein it was held that such situation which is beyond the control of the Airlines does not amount to negligence. However, the complainant lost the baggage and also faced much inconvenience and hardship due to the delay of the flight of Opposite Party No.2. The Written Version of Opposite Party No.2 goes to show that they issued boarding ticket without approval from Opposite Party No.1. They also went to the extent of issuing baggage tag to the complainant from Wichita to India which is unwarranted. Admittedly, one of the bags was traced at Houston with Opposite Party No.2 even though they were repeatedly gave the information to the complainant that her baggage was transferred to Opposite Party No.1 flight. Hence, it is clear that there is gross negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.2 in giving the information with regard to her missing baggage. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1, they could not provide another ticket immediately to the complainant at London as it was the season of Christmas at the year ending. It is the specific case of Opposite Party No.1 that they were prepared to pay Rs.48,960/- as compensation to the complainant for the missing baggage by issuing Ex.A16 cheque through Ex.A15 letter dt.25.01.2009 to the complainant being the final delivering carrier as per Carriage by Air Act. Ex.A18 shows that the baggage was received and delivered on 27^th January. The version of complainant shows that she suffered a lot with mental agony due to loss of her valuable study material besides physical strain and monetary loss. She had to prosecute her studies a fresh as per Ex.A17 letter from Wichita State University. For the reasons stated above, we find the deficiency of service and negligence only on the part of Opposite Party No.2.

12. Point No.4: The learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 argued that the liability about the missing baggage is governed by rules 22 and 23 of second schedule Carriage by Air Act, 1972 as observed by the Hon'ble State Commission in AIR India Ltd Vs T.Sreedhar IV (2005) CPJ 531. He also relied upon another decision in Mohd Ameeruddin Vs The Station Manager, The Indian Airlines II (1999) CPJ 298 in this regard. In the present case, the complainant did not mention about the missing articles of the baggage under Ex.A6 PIR except stating that two pieces of 40 kgs were missing. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, there is no cogent evidence on the side of the complainant to show the value of the items which were kept in the missing bags. Likewise, it is not proper to take into consideration of the contention raised by the complainant's counsel that his client had to spend all the money for the purpose of tracing the baggage without keeping the same for her studies. The complainant ought to have taken such precautions before leaving for India. Moreover, her cousin was available at London to give shelter to her. Hence, the amount offered by Opposite Party No.1 is reasonable for awarding the compensation towards loss of baggage. However, Opposite Party No.2 is liable to pay atleast Rs.10,00,000/- for causing monetary loss, inconvenience, hardship and mental agony to the complainant. We answered this point accordingly.

13. Point No.5: In the result, the first Opposite Party (Jet Airways) is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the loss of her baggage. The second Opposite Party (United Airlines) is directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as compensation to the complainant towards deficiency of service and negligence on its part. The complaint is partly allowed accordingly. Time for compliance is 30 days. If the Opposite Parties failed to pay the above amounts within the stipulated time, the compensation carries interest at 12% p.a.”

16.     After careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances outlined in the preceding paras, we are of the considered view that OP-2 United Airlines was negligent and guilty of deficiency in service in terms of not providing accommodation to the Complainant/Petitioner at Chicago for the intervening night of 23.12.2008 & 24.12.2008, not tying up with OP-1 properly for booking of further flight from London to Mumbai, not taking enough precautions with respect to sending of baggage to OP-1 etc., due to which Complainant had to unnecessarily stay back at London and suffer lot of inconvenience and mental agony and loss. District Forum in its order has observed “The Written Version of Opposite Party No.2 goes to show that they issued boarding ticket without approval from Opposite Party No.1. They also went to the extent of issuing baggage tag to the complainant from Wichita to India which is unwarranted. Admittedly, one of the bags was traced at Houston with Opposite Party No.2 even though they were repeatedly gave the information to the complainant that her baggage was transferred to Opposite Party No.1 flight. Hence, it is clear that there is gross negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.2 in giving  the information with regard to her missing baggage.”  OP-2 in its Evidence Affidavit before the District Forum has stated that the Complainant had been issued alternative tickets for all connecting flights.  It is specifically stated that “Consequently, I say that the Complainant was issued alternative tickets for UA Flight 938 from Chicago to London on 24th December 2008 departing at 9:05 pm, and Jet Airways flights 9W 117 departing from London on 25th December 2008 at 9:05 pm and 9W 451 departing from Mumbai on 26th December 2008 at 3: 30 pm.”. However, when Complainant reached London, she was told by OP-1 Jet Airways that her name does not appear in the list of passengers for London – Mumbai flight for 25.12.2008 and she ultimately could get ticket from London to Mumbai for 30.12.2008 only. District Forum has rightly come to a finding of negligence and deficiency of service on the part of OP-2.  District Forum gave a well-reasoned order.  State Commission went wrong in reversing the findings of District Forum and setting aside the order of District Forum by allowing First Appeal No. 40 of 2014 filed by OP-2 United Airlines.  We are not in agreement with the findings of State Commission with respect to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.  Hence, order of State Commission in First Appeal No. 40 of 2014 filed by OP-2 cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is set aside.  However, we endorse the orders of State Commission in First Appeal No. 45 of 2015 filed by Complainant/Petitioner in dismissing the said First Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.  In the result, we uphold the order of the District Forum dated 20.12.2013 in Consumer Complaint No. 68 of 2009 by allowing Revision Petition No. 187/2018 filed by the Petitioner challenging orders of State Commission in First Appeal No. 40/2014.  However, Revision Petition No. 188/2018 filed by the Petitioner challenging the order of the State Commission in FA/45/2014 is dismissed.  As OP-1 has already implemented the orders dated 20.12.2013 of the District Forum, OP-2 shall implement the order dated 20.12.2013 of the District Forum with respect to Payment of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, it will carry interest @12% p.a.

17.     The pending IAs in both the cases, if any, also stand disposed off.