Airline Not Liable for ‘Gate No Show’ Passengers: Supreme Court Clarifies in Consumer Case (28 January 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 January 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 62
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can an airline be held responsible when passengers miss their flight due to their own delay in reaching the boarding gate? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a consumer dispute case, clarifying the extent of an airline’s liability in such situations. The core issue revolved around whether the airline was deficient in its service when the passengers failed to board their flight on time, despite having been issued boarding passes. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.

Case Background

The respondents, a family of four, booked tickets to travel from Kolkata to Agartala on 8 January 2017, on an Indigo Airlines flight scheduled to depart at 08:45 a.m. They reported at the check-in counter, completed the formalities, and received their boarding passes. However, they were not allowed to board the flight, which departed without them. The respondents claimed that the airline staff did not inform them about the flight’s departure and later snatched their boarding passes when they requested accommodation on the next flight. They had to stay in Kolkata for two nights, incurring additional expenses and suffering mental agony. Initially, they sent a legal notice on 28 January 2017, demanding compensation of Rs. 3,32,754. When no response was received, they filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, seeking a total compensation of Rs. 3,77,770 along with interest.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the airline should have made announcements to ensure the respondents boarded the flight. The forum also noted that the e-tickets did not mention the requirement to report at the boarding gate 25 minutes before departure. The Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the District Forum’s decision but increased the compensation for mental agony. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the airline’s revision petitions, stating that the airline had shown no interest in settling the matter. The airline then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the consumer forums had erred in holding them liable for deficiency in service, as the respondents failed to report at the boarding gate on time, which was a violation of the Conditions of Carriage (CoC). The airline contended that this was a case of ‘Gate No Show’ and not ‘denied boarding’.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which defines ‘deficiency in service’ as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract. The Conditions of Carriage (CoC) of Indigo Airlines, specifically Article 8.2, states that the boarding gate closes 25 minutes before the departure time, and passengers failing to report within this timeline are treated as ‘Gate No Show,’ forfeiting their ticket amount but entitled to a refund of government and airport fees. Article 8.3 states that IndiGo will not be liable for any loss or expense incurred due to the customer’s failure to comply with Article 8. The Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) were also referenced, particularly concerning ‘denied boarding’ due to overbooking or other operational reasons.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Indigo Airlines) Arguments:

• The airline argued that the consumer forums failed to consider the principles of pleadings and burden of proof.
• The respondents did not plead or prove that they reported to the boarding gate 25 minutes before the scheduled departure, as required by the CoC.
• The airline contended that this was a clear case of ‘Gate No Show’ by the respondents, not ‘denied boarding’.
• They argued that deficiency in service must relate to a contractual obligation, not based on sympathy or extraneous factors.
• The airline asserted that they were only obligated to refund government and airport fees, not accommodate them in the next flight without payment.
• The airline cited Interglobe Aviation Limited vs. N. Satchidanand [ (2011) 7 SCC 463 ] to emphasize that the CoC is binding on all concerned.
• They also cited Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. [(2000) 1 SCC 66], stating that deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, or inadequacy in the performance required under a contract.
• The airline highlighted that 164 out of 171 passengers boarded the flight on time, indicating that the issue was with the respondents’ failure to report on time.

Respondents’ (Passengers) Arguments:

• The respondents argued that they had reported well in time at the check-in counter and were issued boarding passes.
• They contended that the airline staff did not inform them about the departure and snatched their boarding passes, leaving them stranded.
• They argued that the airline should have assisted them to board the flight.
• The respondents sought compensation for the expenses incurred due to the missed flight, hotel stay, loss of salary, and mental agony.

Amicus Curiae’s Arguments:

• The Amicus Curiae suggested that the DGCA guidelines should be more humane and passenger-friendly.
• He recommended expanding the definition of ‘denied boarding’ to include cases where passengers miss flights due to lack of assistance from the airline staff after check-in.
• He cited Finnair Oyj vs. Timy Lassooy [Decided on 4.10.2012 in Case C-22/11] and Denise McDonagh vs. Ryanair Ltd. [Decided on 31.1.2013 in Case C-12/11] to support his argument for a broader interpretation of denied boarding in extraordinary circumstances.
• He proposed guidelines for uniform closure of check-in counters and boarding gates, clear display of information on boarding passes, and better communication between airlines and passengers.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the consumer forums were justified in holding the airline liable for deficiency in service.
2. Whether the respondents had substantiated the allegation of deficiency in service by the airline.
3. Whether the case was one of ‘Gate No Show’ or ‘denied boarding’.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Interglobe Aviation Limited vs. N. Satchidanand [(2011) 7 SCC 463]* to affirm that the Conditions of Carriage (CoC) are binding on both the airline and the passengers.
• The Supreme Court relied on Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. [(2000) 1 SCC 66]* to emphasize that deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, or inadequacy in the performance required under a contract.
• The Court found that Finnair Oyj vs. Timy Lassooy [Decided on 4.10.2012 in Case C-22/11]* and Denise McDonagh vs. Ryanair Ltd. [Decided on 31.1.2013 in Case C-12/11]* were not applicable to the facts of the case, as they pertained to ‘denied boarding’ due to flight cancellations and extraordinary circumstances.
• The Supreme Court noted that the National Commission erroneously relied on Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269]* to deny itself jurisdiction, despite the manifest errors in the decisions of the lower consumer forums.
• The Supreme Court referred to The Manager, Southern Region, Air India, Madras & Ors. vs. V. Krishnaswamy [1994 (2) C.P.C. 171]* where a similar plea of snatching of boarding pass was rejected.
• The Supreme Court disagreed with the observation in Dr. Bikas Roy & Anr. vs Interglobe Aviation Ltd. (IndiGo) [Decided on 22.2.2018 in Appeal Case No. A/42/2017]* that it is the duty of the airlines’ authority to help the passengers to board the flight well in time after security check.
• The Supreme Court relied on Joint Action Committee of Airlines Pilots’ Association of India & Ors. vs. the Director General of Civil Aviation & Ors. [(2011) 5 SCC 435]* to clarify that the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) are only executive instructions and do not have the force of law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the burden of proof in consumer cases. The Court noted that the respondents failed to establish a deficiency in service by the airline, as they did not report at the boarding gate before its closure, which was a clear violation of the Conditions of Carriage. The Court highlighted that the consumer forums had erred in shifting the burden of proof to the airline and had failed to consider that the material facts constituting deficiency in service were absent in the complaint. The Court also noted that the airline cannot be held liable for the passengers’ failure to comply with the stipulated timelines and that there is no obligation on the airline to escort passengers to the boarding gate after issuing boarding passes.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the consumer forums had erred in holding the airline liable for deficiency in service. The Court emphasized that the deficiency in service must be in relation to the contractual obligation of the airline. In this case, the respondents had failed to report at the boarding gate before its closure, which was a clear violation of the Conditions of Carriage (CoC). The Court noted that the respondents had been issued boarding passes at 07:35 a.m. and the boarding gate was closed at 08:58 a.m., giving them ample time to reach the gate. The Court stated that the airline was not obligated to escort every passenger to the boarding gate after issuing boarding passes, nor was it responsible for the passengers’ failure to comply with the stipulated timelines. The Court also clarified that the case was one of ‘Gate No Show’ and not ‘denied boarding’ as defined in the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR). The Court observed that the consumer forums had erroneously shifted the burden of proof to the airline, without the respondents first establishing the deficiency in service. The Court also rejected the argument that the airline should have made announcements to ensure the respondents boarded the flight, stating that the respondents had failed to prove that they were prevented from reaching the boarding gate by any action of the airline staff. The Court stated that the airline was only obligated to refund the government and airport fees, and not liable for any loss caused to the passengers due to their failure to report at the boarding gate on time.

The Court quoted Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. [(2000) 1 SCC 66], stating, “The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.”

The Court also quoted Interglobe Aviation Limited vs. N. Satchidanand [(2011) 7 SCC 463], stating, “The mere fact that a passenger may not read or may not demand a copy does not mean that he will not be bound by the terms of contract of carriage.”

The Court further stated, “It is not the case of the respondents that they were delayed during the security check much less due to the acts of commission or omission of the ground-staff of the appellants.”

The Court did not issue any specific directions to the airlines regarding uniform practices, leaving it to the competent authority (DGCA) to consider the suggestions of the Amicus Curiae and issue appropriate instructions. The Court clarified that the CAR was only executive instructions and did not have the force of law.

The Court set aside the orders of the lower consumer forums and dismissed the complaint filed by the respondents. However, the Court noted that the airline would not recover the amount deposited by them as a condition precedent for issuance of notice, which had already been withdrawn by the respondents.

Key Takeaways

• Airlines are not obligated to escort passengers to the boarding gate after issuing boarding passes.
• Passengers are responsible for reaching the boarding gate on time, as per the Conditions of Carriage (CoC).
• Airlines are not liable for deficiency in service if passengers fail to report at the boarding gate before its closure.
• In case of ‘Gate No Show,’ airlines are only obligated to refund government and airport fees, and not liable for any other loss caused to the passengers.
• The burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish deficiency in service.
• The Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) are only executive instructions and do not have the force of law.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions to the airlines but left it to the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to consider the suggestions of the Amicus Curiae and issue appropriate instructions regarding uniform practices, if necessary, within a reasonable time, preferably within six months.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that airlines are not liable for deficiency in service when passengers fail to report at the boarding gate before its closure, and that the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish deficiency in service. This judgment clarifies the distinction between ‘Gate No Show’ and ‘denied boarding’ and reinforces the binding nature of the Conditions of Carriage (CoC). This case does not change the previous positions of law but reinforces the existing principles of contract and consumer law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Indigo Airlines, setting aside the orders of the lower consumer forums. The Court held that the airline was not liable for deficiency in service as the passengers failed to report at the boarding gate on time, which was a violation of the Conditions of Carriage. The judgment clarifies the responsibilities of both airlines and passengers, emphasizing the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the burden of proof in consumer cases. This case highlights that airlines are not obligated to escort passengers to the boarding gate and are not responsible for the passengers’ failure to comply with the stipulated timelines.