THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.27754 of 2009 31.12.2009 Between: Managing Director, Indigo Airlines, Guraon And others … Petitioner AND N.Satchidanand, S/o.C.V.Nagarjan …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.27754 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon,ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The Managing Director, Indigo Airlines, Gurgaon, Haryana, their Branch Manager, Hyderabad, and M/s.Inter Globe Aviation Limited, are the petitioners. The writ petition is filed invoking Certiorari jurisdiction of this Court to quash the award dated 18.9.2009 of the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Hyderabad (PLA, for brevity) under Section 22-E of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the Act, for brevity). By impugned award, petitioners herein (hereafter, Indigo) were directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,500/- towards costs to the respondent herein (hereafter, passenger). Writ of Certiorari is sought mainly on the ground that PLA, Hyderabad, suffers from inherent lack of territorial jurisdiction and that findings recorded are unsustainable in the face of record. We have considered these aspects and came to the conclusion that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine for the reasons as below. The passenger, who is a practicing advocate, purchased return ticket from New Delhi to Hyderabad on 14.12.2007 by Indigo flight No.6E-301 scheduled to depart at 06.15 am. The passenger reported on time but the flight did not take off on schedule due to bad light, thick fog and reduced visibility. Ultimately the passenger and others were made to sit in the aircraft from 05.40 am till 04.00 pm when the flight took off and landed at Hyderabad at 07.00 pm. The passenger alighted at Hyderabad but he was not allowed to go out of the terminal. The Deputy Manager and security officer of Indigo detained on a oral complaint of misbehaviour by a female crewmember. When the passenger insisted upon for supply of a copy of crewmember’s complaint, he was allowed to go. He filed Case No.5903 of 2008 claiming Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for detention in the aircraft from 06.40 am till 07.00 pm confined to the seat, denying refreshments while sitting in the aircraft creating situation where being a diabetic patient he was not allowed to take medicine from the baggage in the cargo, for illegally detaining on false complaint from 07.00 pm to 08.30 pm, for not being able to attend the Court on 14th December 2007, and for medical treatment for four days for mental and physical agony. Indigo opposed the case for PLA objecting the territorial jurisdiction. They contended that as per the conditions of the ticket, PLA, Hyderabad, lacks jurisdiction. They also justified the delay in departure of flight 6E-305 on the ground of low runway visibility. Indigo also alleged that passenger misbehaved with crew as well as airhostess throwing biscuits at her, which was reported orally. They further asserted that the delay was beyond control of the airlines operator and the matter of vis major. The PLA commenced conciliation proceedings under Chapter VI-A of the Act. Both the parties requested PLA for deciding the dispute on merits in accordance with Section 22(7) of the Act. Accordingly, learned PLA considered various aspects of the matter and came to the conclusion that the suffering of the passenger needs to be compensated. The plea of territorial jurisdiction was decided in favour of passenger. Insofar as the delay on the part of Indigo and retaining the passengers for more than 10 hours in the aircraft without canceling the same, PLA observed as under. With regard to the third contention, undisputedly a disturbed programme and a prolonged stay over a board resulting in helplessness causes agony to any person. It is claimed by the petitioner that the respondents ought to have taken appropriate steps within a reasonable time by either setting the boarded passengers free to launch till the clearance is received or ought to have made arrangements to the comfort of passengers. Neither the respondents took any steps to take back the passengers from the abroad launch nor provided the required food to the passengers. No doubt there exists the rules but the rules are made on a regular circumstances and the continuance that arises in a present case cannot be guided by strict rules. The exigency of the situation ought to have rendered by the respondents and they are under the moral duty to take back the passengers to the launch and keep them by obtaining a necessary approvals from the authorities. This failure is un-excusable. The entire problem of the case is obviously un-connected and in different conduct on the part of the respondents. This is un-becoming behaviour of the respondent airlines needs to be corrected from all human values. In view of these circumstances the petitioner who suffered needs to be compensated. Counsel for Indigo raised two limbs of arguments. The first limb pertains to territorial jurisdiction of PLA to entertain the complaint of the passenger. Second limb deals with the findings recorded by PLA and basis for the same. Insofar as second limb of argument is concerned, having regard to the finding of facts recorded by PLA, we do not feel to countenance in all the submissions, especially when it is admitted that the passengers boarded the aircraft at 5.40 am on 14.12.2007 and were made to sit in aircraft till 4.00 pm on the same day, one can well imagine the physical and mental condition of the passengers especially diabetic patients to sit in a confined seat in aircraft in Delhi winter. The physical and mental damage the passenger suffers in such inclement whether without proper attendance or without supply of refreshments can be real and not remote. Therefore, we do not find any strong reason to interfere with the order of the learned PLA. Counsel for Indigo submits that as per Indigo’s Passenger Rules, all disputes are amenable to the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts and legal fora. According to him, notwithstanding the indisputable fact that the passenger purchased the ticket at Hyderabad, that he alighted at Hyderabad and he was detained for some time at Hyderabad after 7.00 pm on 14.12.2007, it is only the Delhi Courts and legal fora, which can entertain any complaint. We are afraid we cannot accept the submissions. The counsel for Indigo relies on ABC Laminart Private Limited v A.P.Agencies, Salem[1], Kusum Ingots & Alloys Limited v Union of India[2] and Eastern Coalfields Limited v Kalyan Banerjee[3], in support of the contention that cause of action or part of cause of action does not arise in Hyderabad. The submission is misconceived. It is incorrect to assume that Section 20(c) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is attracted to the facts of the case. In our considered opinion, it is Section 19, which is directly attracted when the passenger who suffered injury due to deficiency service by Indigo seeks to enforce his remedy. Even otherwise, as the passenger purchased ticket at Hyderabad, part of cause of action has arisen and PLA, Hyderabad has jurisdiction. Be that as it is, as per Section 19 of CPC when the case is for compensation for wrong done to the person, if the wrong was done within the legal limits of jurisdiction of one Court, and the defendant resides or carries on business within the legal limits of jurisdiction of another Court, such case can be instituted at the option of the injured person in either of the Courts. Therefore, PLA does not suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction. Whether the conditions printed on the ticket and the jurisdictional rule of Indigo oust the jurisdiction of Hyderabad Courts or legal fora, the question is no more res integra. Even if the parties agreed to the jurisdiction of a particular Court, if the legal Court’s jurisdiction is not ousted under the Statute, both the Courts can entertain the cause. A reference may be made to Hakam Singh v Gammon (India) Limited[4] and ABC Laminart Private Limited v A.P.Agencies, Salem[5]. In Hakam Singh (supra), it was held as under. By Clause 13 of the agreement it was expressly stipulated between the parties that the contract shall be deemed to have been entered into by the parties concerned in the City of Bombay. In any event the respondent have their principal office in Bombay and they were liable in respect of a cause of action arising under the terms of the tender to be sued in the Courts at Bombay. It is not open to the parties by agreement to confer by their agreement jurisdiction on a Court which it does not possess under the Code. But where two courts or more have under the CPC jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy. Such an agreement does not contravene Section 28 of the Contract Act. (emphasis supplied) In ABC Laminart Private Limited (supra), under an agreement ABC Laminart having its registered office at Udyog Nagar in Gujarat within the jurisdiction of District Court of Kaira, agreed to supply metallic yarn to respondent having business at Salem in Tamil Nadu. Clause 11 of the agreement provided that disputes shall be subject to Kaira jurisdiction. When the disputes arose, respondent filed a suit before Subordinate Judge, Salem, for recovery of certain amounts, which was opposed, inter alia, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The trial Judge dismissed the suit agreeing with defendant but, appeal was allowed by High Court of Madras against which ABC Laminart preferred civil appeal by special leave. Apex Court dismissed the appeal following Hakam Singh (supra). The cause of action is explained by the Supreme Court as follows. A cause of action means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It was further held as follows. So long as the parties to a contract do not oust the jurisdiction of all the Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction to decide the cause of action under the law it cannot be said that the parties have by their contract ousted the jurisdiction of the Court. If under the law several Courts would have jurisdiction and the parties have agreed to submit to one of these jurisdictions and not to other or others of them it cannot be said that there is total ouster of jurisdiction. In other words, where the parties to a contract agreed to submit the disputes arising from it to a particular jurisdiction which would otherwise also be a proper jurisdiction under the law their agreement to the extent they agreed not to submit to other jurisdictions cannot be said to be void as against public policy. If on the other hand the jurisdiction they agreed to submit to would not otherwise be proper jurisdiction to decide disputes arising out of the contract it must be declared void being against public policy. (emphasis supplied) It is commonplace that due to free sky policy of Government of India, access is provided to airline routes in India prompting proliferation of private players operating airlines. All of them encourage passengers to book the tickets online on the Internet to reduce the costs involved in maintaining the ticket booking infrastructure and organizational staff. Indeed, some of these private airlines offer hefty discount to those who book the tickets on internet. Most of the passengers, who book tickets or most of the passengers to buy tickets in Indigo counters seldom, read the conditions and conditions regarding jurisdiction of Court in case of disputes. In such a situation, the jurisdiction aspects of the contract between Indigo and passenger must receive liberal approach by the Courts or else the consumerism would be at peril. Whatever be the reason and whatever be the justification, for Indigo in not operating Flight 6E- 301 as per schedule, it certainly caused inconvenience to the passenger who is admittedly a diabetic patient. Therefore, he should at least receive nominal damages for the deficiency of service. This was what was precisely done by learned PLA in an unexceptional manner. We do not see any strong reason to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction to find fault with the same. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) ______________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA,J) December 31, 2009. YS [1] (1989) 2 SCC 163 : AIR 1989 SC 1239 [2] (2004) 6 SCC 254 [3] (2008) 3 SCC 456 [4] (1971) 1 SCC 286 : AIR 1971 SC 740 [5] (1989) 2 SCC 163 : AIR 1989 SC 1239