The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has rejected an airline’s attempt to use a flat aircraft tyre as a force majeure defence, holding that the cancellation reflected inadequate fleet management when two of the carrier’s three aircraft were already under maintenance.
The ruling followed a complaint by Kamlesh Jani, who had booked two tickets on Ventura Air Connect Ltd’s VA-702 flight from Amreli to Surat on October 2, 2023. Jani travelled from his native town of Khambha to the airport, where he learnt that the flight had been cancelled. According to the case details, the airline’s email informing him of the cancellation arrived after the scheduled departure time.
Jani subsequently entered into a heated argument with ground staff. The airline later blacklisted him, alleging aggressive behaviour towards its chief executive officer. He challenged the airline before the Amreli District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which directed Ventura Air Connect to pay Rs 6,000 towards his two-way taxi expenses, Rs 50,000 for mental agony and harassment, and Rs 3,000 towards litigation costs. The district commission also ordered the airline to remove his name from its blacklist.
The airline appealed against the order before the state commission. It argued that one of its aircraft had developed a flat tyre and that all flights had to be cancelled in accordance with aviation safety requirements. It also submitted that the ticket fare had been refunded and that Jani had not established harassment.
The state commission rejected the force majeure argument. It noted that Ventura Air Connect operated three aircraft, of which two were already under maintenance, leaving the carrier’s entire day’s operations dependent on a single aircraft. The commission said that the failure of the sole operational aircraft, in these circumstances, was not an act of God but a foreseeable consequence of leaving no margin for contingency.
The commission held that the tyre deflation, occurring while two-thirds of the airline’s fleet was out of service, reflected a lapse in maintenance and fleet management attributable to the airline. It classified the circumstances as a deficiency in service rather than an event that could automatically shield the carrier from liability.
The state commission dismissed the airline’s appeal and imposed an additional fine of Rs 10,000, payable to Jani. The order also upheld the compensation and the direction requiring the airline to remove his name from its blacklist.
