An airline company cannot be held vicariously liable for the actions of its travel agent and general sales agent in providing confirmed tickets, as established by previous judgments and legal principles.

Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—These two appeals are directed against one and the same order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No. 10 of 1998 filed by Shri Datar Singh Bajar against The India Manager, Gulf Air, G-12, Connaught Place, New Delhi, M/s. Jet Air, General Sales Agent of Gulf Air (for short hereinafter referred to as M/s. Jet Air), SCO No. 14-15, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh and M/s. Khanna Enterprises, Tour and Travels Operators, SCO No. 94-95, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. The complainant Shri Datar Singh Bajar and his wife Mrs. Devinder Kaur purchased two air tickets of Gulf Air from respondent No. 2 - M/s. Jet Air, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through respondent No. 3 - M/s. Khanna Enterprises for Edmonton (Canada) from Delhi, both onward and return journey on payment of a sum of Rs. 65,000/-. The tickets were duly confirmed and marked as O.K. by the Gulf Air Company. The complainant paid a visit to respondent No. 3 - M/s. Khanna Enterprises to ensure the confirmation of journey to avoid any harassment at a later stage and was always assured by the General Sales Agent of Gulf Air Company through respondent No. 3 - M/s. Khanna Enterprises that the tickets were confirmed and already marked as ‘O.K.’ on the tickets. The complainant Shri Datar Singh Bajar and his wife Smt. Devinder Kaur were going to Canada as immigrants and their entry visa was valid up to 21.4.1997. It has been contended that no further extension was allowable by the Canadian Commission. It was the main reason that the complainant continued to make enquiries regarding the tickets issued being confirmed between 20.3.1997 to 17.4.1997. The complainant accompanied by his wife left for Delhi on 18.4.1997 and reported at counter of M/s. Gulf Air at Indira Gandhi International Airport on 19.4.1997 at 4.45 p.m. much before scheduled departure time of the flight with all baggages and documents. The complainant was, however, told by the Counter Assistant that the name of the complainant Shri Datar Singh Bajar and his wife Mrs. Devinder Kaur did not appear in the list of the confirmed passengers and their names were shown in the waiting list at Serial No. 43. The complainant was further informed that the flight was already full to its capacity and there was no way to help him and his wife and they could not be accommodated as passengers on the scheduled flight. It has been contended that this happens at the last moment and they were shocked and harassed despite the fact that their tickets had been confirmed by the agencies referred to above namely, M/s. Khanna Enterprises and M/s. Jet Air. They contacted the other airlines and were able to procure two tickets for their onward journey from Delhi to Edmonton (Canada) by Air France for 20.4.1997 leaving Delhi at 00.30 a.m. While procuring these two tickets from Air France, the complainant had to incur heavy expenses and purchased two tickets without any discount at the price of Rs. 1,02,150.00 for single journey to Edmonton. The complainant had to borrow huge amount from different persons and was put to physical, mental harassment and humiliation and was made to pay interest at heavy rate on the sum borrowed. On their return journey from Edmonton (Canada), they approached the travel agent of Gulf Air Company at Edmonton for booking the return journey in July, 1997 but surprisingly they were told that since the tickets for onward journey from Delhi to Edmonton was not undertaken by the complainant and his wife on the tickets purchased by Gulf Air Company, they could not undertake the return journey from Edmonton (Canada) to Delhi on return ticket. Under these circumstances, the complainant and his wife had to borrow a further sum 2,000 dollars and purchased return ticket to Delhi. In the background of these allegations, the complainant has alleged that the respondent No. 3