For Vijay Kumar, who was dealing with the loss of his father, carelessness on the part of an airline in the timely despatch of his father’s remains only added to his troubles. While the delay could not be undone, with the consumer court passing a ruling in his favour, Vijay’s approaching the court was not in vain.

Upholding the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission too held that the airline was responsible for the delay in delivery and ordered compensation.

Case facts

Vijay booked a Jet Airways flight to carry the remains of his deceased father from Bengaluru to Port Blair, where his father’s last rights were to be performed.

The booking was made on an early morning flight from Bengaluru to Port Blair via Chennai and a sum of ₹8,230 was paid. Vijay too travelled by the same flight.

The funeral ceremony was to be conducted some time after the flight’s scheduled arrival at Port Blair and Vijay’s relatives had been informed of the same. However, on reaching the airport, Vijay realised that the package containing his father’s remains had not been loaded on the flight from Chennai to Port Blair. The package was finally delivered to Vijay only the day after and the last rites could not be performed as scheduled.

Alleging gross negligence on part of the airlines, which also led to his mother suffering an attack of angina pectoris, Vijay filed a complaint before the State Commission. He claimed compensation of ₹80 lakh for deficiency in service and the mental agony caused.

Weak argument

Denying it to be a case of deficiency in service, the airline while presenting its case before the State Commission, alleged it to be a case of human error which “does occur sometimes.”

The airline also mentioned that the cargo was delivered to Vijay the next day, and without any additional charges to boot. The State Commission took Vijay’s side, holding that the airline was contract-bound to deliver the remains on time.

It could not escape responsibility by passing on the blame to its staff in charge of handling the cargo.

The airline was held guilty of deficiency in service for failing to deliver the cargo on time as well as not taking proper care of the cargo while it was with it.

The State Commission ordered that it pay Vijay ₹1,45,000 as compensation.

The airline was also held responsible for causing mental agony, a result of the failure to perform a father’s last rites on the intended date. It accordingly directed the airline to cough up another ₹1,00,000.

Lost case

The airline then approached the National Commission, before which it argued that since it was operating only one flight from Chennai to Port Blair, the cargo could be dispatched to its destination only the next day.

It also claimed the compensation to be excessive and unreasonable.

However, agreeing with the findings of the earlier court, the National Commission ruled in Vijay’s favour.

The court found it hard to believe that a baggage weighing 100 kg missed the attention of the staff and was left unattended. As regards what would amount to fair compensation for mental agony, the court held that while it was impossible to put an accurate number to it, given the circumstances of the case, it felt it was best not to interfere and upheld the amount awarded by the lower court.

Related Topics