JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant who is petitioner in RP No.2210 of 2009, reached IGI Airport from Groningen on 06.09.2015.  He had to board a flight of Air India to take him from Delhi to Chandigarh.  The baggage of the complainant was checked and thereafter, he boarded the plane which was to take him to Chandigarh.  He however, was deplaned from the aircraft, by Air India.  Thereafter, he had to hire a taxi incurring an expenditure of Rs.5,500/-.  Alleging deficiency on the part of Air India in rendering services to him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint. 

2.      The complaint was resisted by Air India primarily on the ground that the Security Agency having detained the baggage of the complainant for re-check, they had no option but to deplane the complainant since the plane was ready for take-off. 

3.      The District Forum, vide its order dated 07.09.2018, directed Air India, petitioner in RP No.1488 of 2019, to refund the taxi fare of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant besides paying Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation. 

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 26.03.2019, the State Commission directed as under:

1. The respondents/opposite parties, jointly and severally, are directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/-, awarded by the Forum on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant, which is ordered to be paid to the appellant/complainant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 10% per annum, from the date of default, till realization.

2. The other relief granted by the Forum is intact.

5.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, Air India is before this Commission by way of RP No.1488 of 2019.  The complainant is not satisfied even with the compensation awarded to him by the State Commission and is before this Commission by way of RP No.2210 of 2019. 

6.      The e-mails which Air India had sent to the complainant on 04.11.2017 and 21.11.2017, clearly show that the security agency which was entrusted with checking the baggage of the passengers, suspected some item being carried by the complainant in his check-in baggage.  The security services therefore, advised Air India that they wanted to re-check the baggage of this particular passenger.  Since the baggage could have been checked only in the presence of the passenger, there was no option left except to de-board the complainant so as to enable him to identify his baggage in the restricted area meant for re-checking of the baggage.  Air India could not have ignored the requests made by the security agency since any lapse in the security, could have resulted in disastrous consequences.  It would be immaterial that on re-checking, nothing harmful was found in the luggage of the complainant.  What is material is that the security agency did notice something suspicious in the baggage and therefore, taking no chance with the security of the passengers and the Aircraft, it decided to request the carrier to deplane the passenger so that the luggage could be re-checked in restricted area, on identification by him and in his presence.  In any case, there was no deficiency on the part of Air India in rendering services to the complainant since they were merely going by the instructions issued to them by the security agency. 

7.      The next question which arises for consideration is as to what order this Commission should pass in the facts and circumstances of the case when it has not found deficiency on the part of Air India in rendering services to the complainant.  Admittedly, the order passed by the District Forum was not challenged by Air India before the State Commission.  Air India thereby accepted the said order.  Therefore, in my opinion, instead of dismissing the Consumer Complaint, it would be appropriate to set aside the order passed by the State Commission while Maintaining the order passed by the District Forum. Ordered accordingly.  The Revision Petition filed by the complainant being RP No.2210 of 2019 is dismissed and the Revision Petition filed by Air India being RP No.1488 of 2019 is disposed of in terms of this order.