<p>A Delhi District Consumer Court gave this ruling while directing Oman Aviation Services to pay Rs 25,000 to a lawyer and his wife, who had to wait at Delhi Airport for 10 hours in December 2005 as their flight was delayed due to fog and low visibility.<br /><br />"After going through the material on the record, we find that though there is no deficiency of service on the part of Oman Aviation Services, yet long waiting at the airport caused tiredness and inconvenience to the passengers, who felt frustrated and harassed.<br /><br />"In these circumstances, to meet the end of consumer justice, we direct the Oman Aviation Services to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 to each of the complainants (the advocate and his wife) and Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses," a district consumer court bench headed by C K Chaturvedi said.<br /><br />The court passed its order on a complaint filed by advocate Hardev Lal Kapur and his wife Sudesh Kapur, who had planned a trip from Delhi to United Arab Emirates via Muscat in December 2005.<br /><br />They reached the Delhi airport at 6.15 am on the slated date of journey and booked their luggage but had to wait for the flight which was postponed number of times and took off only at 4.15 pm.<br /><br />The advocate had claimed that he was unable to take the connecting flight from Muscat at 4.15 pm the next day.<br /><br />Kapur had filed a complaint before the district consumer forum, claiming that they missed the "dinner etc." which they had already booked. He claimed a total Rs 70,000 on account of harassment, loss of two days' time and litigation expenses.<br /><br />The aviation company, in its reply, had pointed out that the flight was delayed due to fog and low visibility, over which the airlines had no control and there was no negligence on part of Oman Aviation Services.<br /><br />"All waiting passengers including the complainant were informed and also provided breakfast and lunch at New Delhi Airport," it said. But the forum rejected its contention and ordered it to compensate the passengers.</p>
<p>A Delhi District Consumer Court gave this ruling while directing Oman Aviation Services to pay Rs 25,000 to a lawyer and his wife, who had to wait at Delhi Airport for 10 hours in December 2005 as their flight was delayed due to fog and low visibility.<br /><br />"After going through the material on the record, we find that though there is no deficiency of service on the part of Oman Aviation Services, yet long waiting at the airport caused tiredness and inconvenience to the passengers, who felt frustrated and harassed.<br /><br />"In these circumstances, to meet the end of consumer justice, we direct the Oman Aviation Services to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 to each of the complainants (the advocate and his wife) and Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses," a district consumer court bench headed by C K Chaturvedi said.<br /><br />The court passed its order on a complaint filed by advocate Hardev Lal Kapur and his wife Sudesh Kapur, who had planned a trip from Delhi to United Arab Emirates via Muscat in December 2005.<br /><br />They reached the Delhi airport at 6.15 am on the slated date of journey and booked their luggage but had to wait for the flight which was postponed number of times and took off only at 4.15 pm.<br /><br />The advocate had claimed that he was unable to take the connecting flight from Muscat at 4.15 pm the next day.<br /><br />Kapur had filed a complaint before the district consumer forum, claiming that they missed the "dinner etc." which they had already booked. He claimed a total Rs 70,000 on account of harassment, loss of two days' time and litigation expenses.<br /><br />The aviation company, in its reply, had pointed out that the flight was delayed due to fog and low visibility, over which the airlines had no control and there was no negligence on part of Oman Aviation Services.<br /><br />"All waiting passengers including the complainant were informed and also provided breakfast and lunch at New Delhi Airport," it said. But the forum rejected its contention and ordered it to compensate the passengers.</p>