DR. VIJAYAKUMARAN C.P.V. v. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA & ORS.

A the question as to whether the CAR is a statute or a subordinate legislation. The Court concluded that the CAR was only executive instructions, which has been issued for guidance of the duty holders/ stakeholders and to implement the scheme of the act and do not have the force of law. Concededly, clause 3.2 if read as a whole, in no way would apply to a case of ‘Gate No Show’, which is markedly different B than ‘denied boarding’. In the facts of this case, it is unnecessary to dilate on the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae that expansive meaning be given to the expression ‘denied boarding’.

25Copy pinpoint25. As a matter of fact, the coordinate Bench of the National Commission in the case of The Manager, Southern Region (supra) C has had occasion to observe that it would not be appropriate to cast an obligation on any airlines to delay the departure of an aircraft beyond the scheduled time of the departure and to await late arrival of any passenger, whosoever he may be, howsoever highly or lowly placed. Even in that case, the complainant had failed to present himself at the departure lounge D in time and there was no kind of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the airlines. Similar situation obtains in the present case. The appellant-Airlines cannot be blamed for the non-reporting of the respondents at the boarding gate before 08:20 a.m. and in any case before 08:58 a.m., when the boarding gate was finally closed.

26Copy pinpoint26. That takes us to the suggestions given by the learned Amicus Curiae for issuing directions to all the airlines to abide by uniform practice. We refrain from doing so and leave that to the competent authority (the DGCA) to consider the same and after interacting with all the stakeholders, take appropriate decision and issue instructions in that behalf, as may be advised. The competent authority (the DGCA) may do so within a reasonable time, preferably within six months from receipt of a copy of this judgment or any representation in that behalf.

27Copy pinpoint27. In view of the above, the impugned judgments and orders passed by the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission cannot be sustained and the same are, therefore, set aside and resultantly, the complaint filed by the respondents stands dismissed. However, as assured by the appellants, no recovery of the amount deposited by them as a condition precedent for issuance of notice, which has already been withdrawn by the respondents, need be made from the respondents. H

THE BRANCH MANAGER, INDIGO AIRLINES, KOLKATA & ANR. v. 417 KALPANA RANI DEBBARMA & ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

28Copy pinpoint28. We place on record our word of appreciation for the able A assistance given by the learned Amicus Curiae – Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel.

29Copy pinpoint29. The appeals are accordingly allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. B

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals allowed.