Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh (Retd.), President;
Mr. Yogeshwar Sahni IAS (Retd.), Member
H.S. WADHAWA—Complainant
versus
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS.—Respondents
Complaint Case No. 71 of 1990—Decided on 28.10.1991
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Sh. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Sh. S.K. Tyagi, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: None.
The refusal of an airline to accept a valid ticket for travel is an unfair trade practice and a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 2(1)(g) - SECTION 2(1)(r) - SECTION 14(1)(d) - SECTION 15 - UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - COMPENSATION - COSTS - JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY - The court held that the refusal of the Indian Airlines Corporation (IAC) to accept the complainant's ticket for his return journey from Calcutta to Delhi was an unfair trade practice and a deficiency in service. The court awarded the complainant compensation and costs and held the IAC and Vayudoot jointly and severally liable.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased two tickets from a travel agency for his round trip Chandigarh-Delhi-Calcutta and Delhi-Chandigarh. The tickets indicated confirmed bookings, and the complainant had no problem making his outward journey to Calcutta by an IAC flight. However, on the return journey, the IAC ground staff at the Calcutta airport refused to honor the ticket, claiming it was a Vayudoot ticket. The complainant was forced to purchase another IAC ticket against cash payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the IAC had no justification in refusing to accept the complainant's ticket for his return journey from Calcutta to Delhi. The court also found that the IAC's conduct in first accepting the validity of Vayudoot tickets on IAC sectors and then repudiating it was unfair and did not reflect well on the corporation.
Issues: Whether the IAC's refusal to accept the complainant's ticket was an unfair trade practice and a deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the IAC's refusal to accept the complainant's ticket was an unfair trade practice and a deficiency in service under Section 2(1)(g) and Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also held that the IAC's failure to respond to the complainant's communications was a violation of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. The court further held that the complainant was entitled to compensation and costs under Section 15 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court directed the IAC and Vayudoot to jointly and severally pay the complainant Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as costs. The court also directed Vayudoot to refund the price of the Vayudoot Calcutta-Delhi ticket.
Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, President—The complainant, Shri H.S. Wadhawa, purchased through respondent No. 3, a Chandigarh based travel agency, two different tickets
(i) bearing No. 4212200539
and (ii) bearing No. 4212200542/5
for his round trip Chandigarh—Delhi—Calcutta and Delhi—Chandigarh. Ticket No. (i) was for the outward and return journey on the Chandigarh Delhi sector; and the other ticket related to the Delhi—Calcutta sector.
2. The two tickets for the Chandigarh—Delhi and the Delhi—Calcutta sectors indicated confirmed bookings; and the complainant had no problem in making his outward journey to Calcutta by an I.A.C. flight. He had been given to understand that the Vayudoot tickets were valid for travel by I.A.C. flights.
3. The complainant, however, ran into trouble on the return journey from Calcutta to Delhi. The I.A.C. ground staff at the Calcutta airport refused to honour the ticket which the complainant held because according to them it was a Vayudoot ticket which they would not accept. All efforts of the complainant to make the I.A.C. functionaries relent failed; and he was forced to purchase an other I.A.C. ticket against cash payment.
4. The complainant had remonstrated to the I.A.C. officials at Calcutta; and on arrival at Delhi he lodged a formal written protest with the Vayudoot management as well.
5. A simple and straight forward case in which some over zealous and officious functionaries of the I.A.C. at Calcutta airport caused avoidable and unnecessary harassment to a bona fide traveller has regrettably been complicated by the subsequent indefensible stand taken by the two principal respondents.
It is not disputed—and cannot be disputed— that respondent No. 1 refused to honour the ticket for the complainant’s return journey from Calcutta to Delhi though it had honoured the same ticket for his outward journey on the very same sector. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the I. A.C that there was no contractual agreement between respondents 1 & 2 which cast an obligation on the I.A.C. to carry respondent No. 2’s passengers does not hold in view of the earlier stand taken by the I.A.C. It would be pertinent in this context to draw attention to the contradictory pleas taken by the I.A.C. on different occasions :
(i) May 21,1990 (in reply to the legal notice served by the complainant)
“We would like to inform you that M/s. Vayudoot tickets are accepted for travel on Indian Airlines sectors”....
(ii) Written reply : January 15,1991 (paragraph 1)
“It is submitted that there is no regulation or provision stating an agreement between the two airlines... no free convertibility between I.A.C. and the Vayudoot………
Each carrier has disowned responsibility for the occurrence and blames the other. It does not stand to reason that the ticket was all right for travel from Delhi to Calcutta but was not acceptable for the journey Calcutta to Delhi.
6. I.A.C’s letter of May 21, 1990 asked the complainant to furnish some documents so that the matter could be investigated — presumably as a first step to settling it. But in spite of the complainant’s compliance thereof— and even after sending reminders to the Corporation — the I.A.C. who had promised “to revert to the subject” decided to keep silent. The complainant had no option but to initiate legal action against the respondent. I.A.C. could have easily avoided being dragged into this litigation if it had only kept its word and perhaps made suitable amends.
7. Having given our careful consideration to all the issues involved and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties we are of the view :
(a) That IAC had no justification in refusing to accept the complainant’s ticket for his return journey from Calcutta to Delhi. They had a seat available on the flight in question;
(b) that IAC’s conduct in first accepting the validity of Vayudoot tickets on I.A.C. sectors and then repudiating it does not do any credit to it just as its refusal to answer any one of
