INDIAN FARMERS FERTILISER COOPERATIVE LIMITED vs MESCO AIRLINES LTD.

THE present complaint is filed by Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) which is cooperative society registered under Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 against the opposite party Mesco Airlines Ltd. for deficiency in service for not providing helicopter services hired by them according to their requirements. THE complainant has a registered office in Delhi and different units are at Kandla in Gujarat and U.P., etc. THE complainant is under the administrative control of Govt. of India, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Department of Fertilizer, New Delhi. THE complainant is manufacturing chemicals and fertilizers like urea etc. with annual turnover of Rs. 1,500 crores. It is stated that Shri Ram Lakhan Yadav the then Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers was to attend a public meeting at Kandla and was scheduled to review working of IFFCO on 21.9.1995. Shri Yadav was to reach Ahmedabad on 21.9.1995 and from Ahmedabad he was required on the same day to reach Kandla and back. THE departure schedule from Ahmedabad was fixed at 2.30 p.m. and since time was short, the services of helicopter were very essential for Hon''ble Minister''s tour programme to visit Kandla and back.

IT is further stated that in order to obtain helicopter services, Shri V.K. Grover, the then Senior General Manager (presently Executive Director) of the complainant had a detailed telephonic discussion with the opposite party and their Captain Mr. Thapar of their requirement to hire services of a nine-seater helicopter for travel of Shri Yadav with Managing Director Mr. U.S. Awasthi and other senior officials of Government from Ahmedabad to Kandla and back on 21.9.1995. IT is contended that the purpose of hiring of helicopter and the importance of one 9-seater helicopter requirements were emphatically explained to the opposite party by the complainant. The opposite party confirmed to provide services of 9-seater helicopter for such special purpose. The fax that has been sent by Mr. Grover to Captain Thapar on 15.9.1995 clearly gives the programme of the Minister to travel along with Managing Director and other staff from Ahmedabad to Kandla and back to Ahmedabad on 21.9.1995. Further a rate of Rs. 65,000 per flying hours and Rs. 20,000 for stay, if required, was also mentioned in the said fax. On 19.9.1995, a fax message was sent by OPs that Dauphin Helicopter is still being repaired for the said trip on 21st and it also stated that in case of non-availability of the aforesaid helicopter, their 6 seater Ecureuil Helicopter will be made available. Due to unserviceability, Dauphin Helicopter was grounded on 21.9.1995 and hence was unavailable as per IFFCO requirement for the scheduled visit. However, the opposite party made alternative arrangement by providing a 5 seater Ecureuil Helicopter VT-MAD at 12.05 hrs. and a 4-seater Observer P-68 aircraft at 11.35 hrs. There is no dispute about the time of availability of these aircrafts as it met the requirement according to the request of the complainant to leave at 2.30 p.m. Minister Mr. Yadav, Managing Director of IFFCO, Ex-Chief Minister Mr. Chhaildas Mehta and State Agricultural Minister Mr. Chudasma left Ahmedabad for Kandla by plane at 3.00 p.m. on 21.9.1995. The helicopter carrying the other officials could not fly direct to Kandla and had to stop en route at Rajkot for refuelling. The helicopter left Ahmedabad at 3.40 p.m. and the control tower at Rajkot had closed and aircraft were not allowed to fly after dusk hours and hence rest of the officers were stranded at Rajkot. The pilot informed that the aircraft which took the Minister to Kandla would come back to Rajkot and pick up the rest of the staff to be taken to Kandla. Aggrieved by this inconvenience and improper arrangements made by the opposite parties, complainant filed this complaint for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties which is given below: The complainant asked for 9-seater helicopter but was provided with two different helicopters and hence there was a breach of agreement as the opposite party changed its schedule unilaterally. O.P. had never informed earlier that one helicopter would not go directly to Kandla and it had to stop at Rajkot for refuelling. The assurance given by the pilot that the 4-seater aircraft (Observer-68) carrying the Minister to Kandla will fly back to Rajkot and carry remaining passengers to Kandla was not fulfilled. There was a delay of departure of the helicopter (Ecureuil) carrying other staff which was scheduled to fly at 2.30 p.m. to Rajkot but was flown at 3.40 p.m. due to mismanagement of the opposite party. Review meeting which was to take place in the absence of Government officials who were stranded in Rajkot could not assist the Minister as the relevant data and records were in their possession. For the above deficiency in service they have claimed the following: Lumpsum compensation of Rs. 21 lakh. Rs. 5,500 towards travelling expenses of the stranded persons from Rajkot to Kandla by road and other incidental expenses. Rs. 3,90,000 which was paid to the opponents as full and final payment towards the services. Rs. 5,500 as legal cost of notice. In all totalling to Rs. 25,01,000. The opposite party submitted that although the aircraft was available (Departure at 2.30 p.m.) it is the delay on the part of the complainant''s guests who left only at 3.40 p.m. to Rajkot.

The opposite party also submitted that it is only due to technical unserviceability of Dauphin Helicopter, it was grounded on 21.9.195 and hence it was not available for the scheduled visit. Although initially they had quoted the rate of Rs. 65,000 per hour for flying, the alternate arrangement had cost them Rs. 90,000 per hour and they had to suffer a loss of Rs. 1.5 lakh. The delay as contended by the complainant was solely because of the mismanagement, confusion of the travelling passengers of the complainant at the Ahmedabad Airport and delay of departure cannot be attributed to the O.P. The aircraft which carried the Minister had completed its to and fro journey uneventfully and there was no complaint against this. The second helicopter being of single engine with marginal fuel reserve could not directly fly from Ahmedabad to Kandla. It was required to stop at Rajkot for refuelling and this information was in the knowledge of complainants. The complainants delayed the departure by more than 70 minutes and according to the log book this mismanagement of time had created further delays. It is in Rajkot Airport that Air Control Tower did not grant permission for this aircraft to fly because of the strong winds, turbulent air and darkness. The Pilot of Ecureuil Helicopter thus had no other choice but to abandon the flight in the larger interest of the passengers. It has been argued by the Counsel that the top-most priority of the Pilot is always the safety of the passengers and the aircraft which he has followed under the instructions of Air Control Tower. The passengers who were to travel by the helicopter to Rajkot were fully aware of these events, as described above. As for their contention that the Government officials could not brief the Minister in the aircraft, it is alleged that there is no evidence to justify this allegation. It is further contended that Minister had gone for a public function and inspected the complainant''s premises as per the scheduled programme. As for as the briefing is concerned, the Managing Director accompanied the Minister and there was nothing on record to show that the Minister was displeased and could not take any decision due to non-availability of the records which were to be on the flight as claimed by the complainant. It is further argued that if this briefing in aircraft was so important to the complainant, then the files could have been sent along with the Managing Director which has not been done by the complainant. It is also the case of the opposite party that the complainant while asking for a helicopter did not specify the number of passengers to be flown nor did he ask for a specific type of helicopter. He relies on the fax message of September 15th of the complainant and pointed out that there is no specific mention of the number of passengers in the fax. Similarly he relies on his fax message of 16th September that while agreeing to provide the helicopter, no mention was made about the specific type of helicopter nor any mention about the number of passengers. On the other hand the complainant argues that the opposite party fully well knew that the requirement was for a 9-seater helicopter. It is argued that in a contract of hiring a helicopter, it is impossible to finalise the contract without knowing the specific requirements such as the sitting capacity, etc. We agree with this argument and hold that the original intention of both the parties was for the provision of 9-seater helicopter. The questions that would therefore arise are: Whether by supplying a 5-seater helicopter and 4-seater plane, instead of a 9-seater helicopter as originally contemplated, the opposite party had rendered any deficiency in service; and If so, whether such deficiency caused any material damage to the complainant. We hold on both these issues against the complainant for the following reasons: Even though the original intention was to have 9-seater helicopter and the arrangements were made by the opposite party to provide such a helicopter, the helicopter could not be provided because the repairs to the helicopter could not be completed and it had to be grounded for the reasons of unserviceability. Possibilities of helicopter not being available were communicated by the opposite party by a telex message dated 19th September i.e., 2 days prior to the journey. Thereafter, again there was discussions between both the parties and when the opposite party offered a 6-seater plane and a 6-seater helicopter, the complainant acquiesced in such an offer on the payment of the same charges. Ultimately, what was provided was a 4-seater aircraft and a 5-seater helicopter. The opposite party has stated that he had incurred a loss or Rs. 1.5 lakh in making alternate arrangements. We therefore, hold that a provision of a 4-seater plane and a 5-seater helicopter in lieu of a 9-seater helicopter because of unserviceability of the 9-seater helicopter does not amount to deficiency in service.

AS regards the second issue, namely whether any material damage to the complainant has taken place, we hold that the responsibility for part of the team of the complainant in not reaching Kandla in time lies solely on the complainant. It is clearly established that the aircraft and the helicopter was stationed in Ahmedabad Airport at 1135 hours and 1205 hours respectively on 15th September. It is further clear that the scheduled time for departure was 1430 hours. However, it is also further established that the plane with the Union Minister, Agriculture Minister of Gujarat, ex-Chief Minister, Gujarat and the Managing Director of the complainant company left Ahmedabad for Kandla only at 1500 hours. This lends credence to the case of the opposite party that the passengers to travel by helicopter boarded only at 1540 hours. Obviously this party could not have left before the Minister left. These were second rung and junior officers. Two of them are Shri V.K. Grover, Senior General Manager of the Kalol unit of the complainant Company and Shri S.M. Kunjunny, General Manager of the Kalol Unit. Both these officers are concerned with the Kalol Unit and not with the Kandla Unit where the Minister was scheduled to visit. The other passengers were Dr. Vinod Agarwal (whose designation and responsibilities were not brought out on record) and Shri Malaviya and Shri Jha, who were described as Government officials (once again their designations and their responsibilities were not brought out on record). The helicopter therefore took off from Ahmedabad Airport with a delay of 70 minutes from the scheduled time. On behalf of the opposite party, it has been stated that he would have been justified to refuse to take off when there was such an inordinate delay of 170 minutes from the scheduled time. It is argued that the pilot took off only in order to keep good relations with the complainant company. The helicopter could reach Rajkot only at 1650 hours. Refuelling of the helicopter which normally takes 10 minutes took more than 20 minutes due to delay in refuelling section at the Rajkot Airport. By that time, there were strong winds, turbulent air and approaching darkness at the Rajkot airport and the Air Control Tower at the Rajkot airport refused to grant permission for the flight from Rajkot to Kandla. Had the passengers started on time from Ahmedabad, the journey to Kandla could have been completed before dusk.

WE do not see any reason why the helicopter stationed at 1205 hours should be delayed by the opposite party for take off till 1540 hours. It is clear that the delay took place only because of delay of passengers in boarding the helicopter at Ahmedabad. WEather conditions at Rajkot Airport are a matter of official record. Air travel is subject to local weather conditions which can never be predicted in advance by the pilot at the time of flying out of Ahmedabad Airport. The complainant has argued that in the absence of some of the officers and record, the proposed review meeting of the working of the Kandla Unit could not take place at Kandla. We are afraid that no evidence has been brought on record to prove this except for a bald statement in the affidavit of Shri V.K. Grover and Shri Kunjunny. No material has been brought on record to show as to what exactly were the review meetings planned which could not be held; what was the role of five persons who could not reach Kandla for the proposed review meeting/discussion; what was the record that was left behind and the views of the Minister on the allegation that the review meeting ended in a fiasco. We have brought out above that the two second rung officers who travelled by helicopter (who could not reach Kandla in time) were in fact associated with the Kalol Unit of the complainant Company and not with the Kandla Unit. The other three passengers seem to be very junior officers who really could not be involved in the review meeting with the Minister. In the absence of any such material to show the specific role it is not possible for us to hold that any material damage has been caused to the Company. As such we see no merit in the complaint and the same stands dismissed. Complaint dismissed