Airline delay and passenger facilitation: no damages for uncontrollable delay, but minimum care remains mandatory during prolonged boarding

An airline is not liable in damages for delay caused by circumstances beyond its control, such as bad weather or air traffic control constraints, but it must still provide minimum passenger facilitation to boarded passengers during prolonged delay. The duty to supply water, snacks and access to toilets applies even to a low-cost carrier and operates independently of any claim for compensation. The Permanent Lok Adalat at Hyderabad was held to have territorial jurisdiction because the contractual clause referring to Delhi courts could not exclude its statutory jurisdiction and part of the cause of action arose at Hyderabad. Compensation and costs were unsustainable absent proof of negligence, unlawful detention or actionable deficiency in service.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat at Hyderabad had territorial jurisdiction despite the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract of carriage; (ii) whether, in the event of delay caused by bad weather and air traffic control constraints, the airline was obliged to provide minimum passenger facilitation and whether failure to do so amounted to deficiency in service; (iii) whether compensation and costs awarded to the passenger were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat at Hyderabad had territorial jurisdiction despite the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract of carriage.

Analysis: A clause conferring jurisdiction on Delhi courts only could not oust the jurisdiction of a forum which otherwise had jurisdiction on the facts. The Permanent Lok Adalat is not a court, and the contractual clause referring only to courts could not govern proceedings before it. In any event, part of the cause of action arose at Hyderabad, where the ticket was purchased and where the passenger alleged detention at the airport. The forum was constituted for the relevant area under the statutory scheme governing public utility services.

Conclusion: The Permanent Lok Adalat at Hyderabad had territorial jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the event of delay caused by bad weather and air traffic control constraints, the airline was obliged to provide minimum passenger facilitation and whether failure to do so amounted to deficiency in service.

Analysis: Delay caused by fog, weather and lack of ATC clearance was beyond the control of the carrier, so no liability to pay damages arose merely for the delay itself. However, once passengers had boarded and remained on the aircraft for an extended period, the airline had a duty to provide minimum facilitation such as water, snacks and access to toilets. That obligation applied even to a low cost carrier and existed independently of any right to damages for delay. On the facts, the facilities provided were held to be reasonable and to satisfy the then applicable minimum requirements.

Conclusion: No compensation was payable for the delay itself, and the facilitation provided did not amount to deficiency in service.

Issue (iii): Whether compensation and costs awarded to the passenger were justified.

Analysis: The passenger's prolonged stay on board was partly the result of his own election to continue on the combined flight after the original flight was cancelled and refund or rebooking options were offered. The alleged detention at the destination airport was not established as wrongful or vexatious. In the absence of proof of negligence, deficiency in service or unlawful detention, the award of damages could not stand.

Conclusion: The award of compensation and costs was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the award succeeded, and the passenger's claim for compensation failed in law because the delay was beyond the carrier's control and no actionable deficiency or negligence was proved.

Ratio Decidendi: An airline is not liable in damages for delay caused by circumstances beyond its control, but it must still provide minimum facilitation to boarded passengers during prolonged delay; compensation can be awarded only if a legally cognizable deficiency in service or negligence is established.

---