Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President; Mr. Jasbir Singh &
Mrs. Devinder Kaur Bhamrah, Members
COZY TRAVELS & ORS.—Appellants
versus
S.S. SURI & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal No. 652 of 1998—Decided on 16.3.2000
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. D.B. Kalia, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that the issuance of a confirmed ticket by an airline creates a binding obligation, and any denial of the seat constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Air Travel - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r)
Fact of the Case:
The complainants booked a flight from Delhi to Moscow for an examination, but the seat was cancelled, causing them to incur additional expenses and miss the examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the airline was at fault for not providing the promised service and committing unfair trade practices. However, it also found that the complainant's claim for damages was not fully substantiated.
Issues: The main issue was whether the airline's actions constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, and the extent of damages suffered by the complainants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the airline's issuance of a confirmed ticket and later denying the seat amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. However, it found that the complainant's claim for damages was not fully supported by evidence.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed the appeal, awarding compensation for the complainant's physical discomfort, harassment, and mental agony due to the airline's actions, but reducing the amount claimed for additional expenses.
Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—Brief facts stated by the respondents-complainants are that Gurtej Singh, complainant No. 2, who is the son of complainant No. 1 S.S. Puri had to go to Moscow to appear in the examination of Ist Medical Institute Saint Peterburg and had to appear in the test fixed for 28.8.1997. Complainant No. 1 had made advance booking of the seat and purchased ticket from Delhi to Moscow, from respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 issued a ticket from Jalandhar for Delhi to Moscow bearing No. Cozy Travels 924-6212-2 dated 2.8.1997 on payment and confirmed the seat by endorsing ticket by computer printing. Availability of the seat was also got confirmed from opposite party No. 3. The details of telephone calls made to respondent No. 3 by complainant No. 1 has been annexed as Annexure ‘B’ with the complaint. It is then averred in the complaint that the respondent No. 2 reconfirmed the seat on 23.8.1997 on telephone. After confirmation of the seat by respondent No. 2, both the complainants alongwith wife of complainant No. 1, who happens to be the mother of complainant No. 2 reached Delhi at 7 p.m. After taking some rest, they reached Indira Gandhi Airport, Delhi on 26.8.1997 at 3 a.m. The flight was to take off at 7.35 a.m. The complainant No. 2 went inside the Airport. His passport, other papers and luggage were got checked by the Airport Authority. After sometime he was told by the Airport Authority that the seat allotted to him has been cancelled on 25.8.1997 and he could not travel to Moscow in flight SU-536. The complainant then went to the office of the respondent No. 1 at 11 a.m. on 26.8.1997 and had to hire taxi for the visits. The complainants were told to contact respondent No. 3, who is their agent. The complainant then visited respondent No. 3 as directed by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 told them that due to over-booking, the seat could not be provided to complainant No. 2 on flight No. SU-536 and advised them to contact respondent No. 3 on 27.8.1997 at 11 a.m. and was told that respondent No. 3 would arrange a seat for the complainant No. 2. Respondent No. 3 was contacted on 27.8.1997 at 11 a.m., who advised them to contact him again at 5 p.m. as he was not able to arrange the seat by then. Respondent No. 3 was again contacted at 8 p.m. at the entry gate of the Indira Gandhi International Airport. But respondent No. 3 was not available at the entry gate, which caused lot of harassment and mental tension to the complainants and their family members. The complainant No. 2 then went inside the Airport with great efforts and pleadings with the Airport Authority could manage a seat on the flight, which was scheduled to take off at 11 a.m. It is then alleged in the complaint that the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for hiring taxies from the Airport to their staying place and to the office of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and back to the Airport. The complainants alongwith their family members had to stay at Delhi on 26.8.1997 and 27.8.1997 and had to pay Rs. 3,000/- as stay charges. This amount had to be incurred due to deficiency in service by respondent No. 2. It is then stated in the complaint that due to delay, the complainant No. 2 could not reach Moscow well in time and could not appear in the examination, which was scheduled for 28.8.1997. Certificate issued by Government Medical Union Russia has been attached with the complaint. It is further alleged in the complaint that complainant No. 2 had to wait for next test, which was held on 18.9.1997, which caused mental harassment and tension to him. It is then stated in the complaint that due to deficiency in service by respondents, the complainants suffered mental/physical harassment and had to spend Rs. 5,000/- more than the actual expenses for staying at Delhi for three days and complainant No. 2 had to wait for 20 days for examination which was got rescheduled for 18.9.1997 with great efforts. A prayer was made in the complaint be
