Ahmedabad: An airline cannot cite a flat tyre as force majeure to escape liability for cancelling a flight, particularly when the aircraft was grounded because of inadequate fleet management, the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled. The court upheld compensation for travellers whose flight was cancelled and who were not informed.The case involved Kamlesh Jani, who booked two tickets on flight VA-702 of Ventura Air Connect Ltd scheduled on Oct 2, 2023, from Amreli to Surat. When he reached the airport from his native town Khambha, he found out that the flight was cancelled and he received an intimation email after the scheduled departure time. He entered into heated arguments with the ground staff. Following the altercation, the airline blacklisted him as a passenger on the charge of his aggressive behaviour with the company’s CEO.Miffed with the blacklisting, Jani sued the airline before Amreli District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which directed the airline to pay Rs 6,000 towards his to-and-fro taxi expenses, Rs 50,000 for mental agony and harassment, and Rs 3,000 towards litigation costs. It also ordered the airline to remove his name from its blacklist.The airline appealed before the state commission against the compensation order and argued that its aircraft had developed a flat tyre and all flights had to be cancelled in accordance with aviation safety norms. It also contended that the ticket fare had been refunded and the passenger had failed to establish harassment.Rejecting the force majeure defence, the commission observed that the airline operated three aircraft, of which two were already under maintenance, leaving its entire day’s operations dependent on a single aircraft.It said, “The sole operational aircraft should develop a flat tyre is not an act of God but a foreseeable consequence of the opponent having left itself no margin for contingency. We find no merit in the opponent’s characterisation of the cancellation as force majeure, and we hold that the deflation of the tyre occurring as it did in the context of two-thirds of the opponent’s fleet already being out of service, reflects a lapse in maintenance and fleet management attributable squarely to the opponent and constitutes deficiency in service.”The state commission dismissed the airline’s appeal and fined it Rs 10,000 to be paid to Jani.
