The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by Deccan Aviation Ltd [Get Quote] challenging two consumer courts' rulings which held it guilty of lacking in services following cancellation of a flight due to poor maintenance of its aircraft.

A bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat refused to give relief to Deccan Aviation, which had sought stay on a Delhi high court order.

The high court had asked it to pay litigation expenses of Rs 50,000 to a passenger in addition to about Rs 33,000 by way of difference in fares and compensation, as ruled by consumer courts earlier.

The passenger, Amit Gupta, had got stranded due to cancellation of a flight and therefore, failed to reach his destination in time.

The high court had observed that the passenger cannot be burdened with additional litigation cost for contesting Deccan Aviation's petition before it.

Submitting that the high court cannot direct it to pay the respondent, the low-cost airlines said its petition raised an important question of law with regard to operation of flights and the obligation of the operators in the event of cancellation and delay of flights due to technical reasons.

Both district forum and Delhi Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission had asked the airline to pay compensation for deficiency in service to the passenger.

Ruling that the cancellation was due to negligence on the part of the airline in maintenance of its aircraft, the consumer courts had observed that the respondent was subjected to mental tension, anxiety and inconvenience.

The court directed Deccan to pay about Rs 33,000 by way of difference in fares and compensation.

The state commission had held that non-maintenance of a carrier or a technical snag or any failure of mechanism itself amounted to deficiency in service, 'as it was the duty of the service provider to see that its aircraft were always kept in perfect condition so as to adhere to the timing of flights'.

It had also observed that the only grounds on which the service provider can be excused were acts of God, such as bad weather, poor visibility, bird hits etc.

While stating that the flight was cancelled due to technical snag beyond its control, Deccan submitted that the consumer fora had acted outside their jurisdiction, as the issuance of the maintenance of aircraft was a matter solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Aircraft Rules 1937.

It was inherent in every machine to develop fault and the owner cannot be held liable for negligence, it further said.

"It is submitted that the finding of the state commission that it is the duty of the service provider to see that the aircraft is always kept in perfect order is an onerous condition and is impossible of performance since the stringent Aircraft Act and Regulations also contemplate that unforeseeable faults can develop in an  aircraft," the petition stated.

According to the low-cost carrier, the consumer courts failed to take into account the terms and conditions of the contract between it and the passenger.

It further said that its fares were much less than the normal fares being charged by the other airlines and, therefore, it had provided in its contract that on cancellation of its flight due to unforeseen circumstances, Air Deccan would not provide for accommodation, refreshments and arrange for an alternate mode of travel.

• Click here to search for lowest airfares!