Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President;
Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt & Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Members
AIR INDIA OFFICE—Appellant
versus
HARPREET SINGH—Respondent
Appeal Nos. 247 and 308 of 2002—Decided on 20.12.2002
For the Appellant :Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. C.S. Pasricha and Mr. S.C. Khanna, Advocates.
The main legal point established is that the airline and the travel agent are liable for the deficiency in service, and consumers have the right to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Air Travel - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)(ii) - The court discussed the deficiency in service by the airline and the travel agent, the OK status of the ticket, and the responsibility of the parties involved. The court highlighted the consumer's right to file a complaint and the liability of the airline and the travel agent for the deficiency in service.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased an air ticket for a flight from Delhi to Sydney, but the ticket was not honored, causing inconvenience and financial loss. The complainant filed a complaint claiming compensation for the deficiency in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant suffered from the deficiency in service by the airline and the travel agent, leading to inconvenience and financial loss. The court also upheld the locus standi of the complainants to file and maintain the complaint case.
Issues: The issues involved the deficiency in service by the airline and the travel agent, the consumer's right to file a complaint, and the locus standi of the complainants to maintain the complaint case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the airline and the travel agent were liable for the deficiency in service, and the complainants had the right to file and maintain the complaint case as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the airline and the travel agent were dismissed, and costs were imposed on them.
Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—These two appeals are directed against one and the same order dated 23.8.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 516 of 1999. The complaint was filed by the respondent Shri Harpreet Singh and his father S. Updesh Singh against M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd. and Air India Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Both the opposite parties have filed separate appeals. Appeal No. 308 of 2002 has been filed by opposite party No. 1-M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd. whereas Appeal No. 247 of 2002 has been filed by opposite party No. 1 - Air India. The facts giving rise to these two appeals may briefly be mentioned as under.
2. Shri Harpreet Singh, complainant had purchased an air ticket from the appellant-Air India through its travel agent-M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd., Chandigarh owned by Shri Kamaljit Singh Cheema, Proprietor. The ticket issued to him bore No. 081-34403:625:559 in respect of flight No. AI 416 which was scheduled for departure on 25.2.1999 at 11.05 and charged Rs. 22,730/- vide receipt dated 23.2.1999. The copy of the receipt has been placed on record as Annexure C-1 and copy of ticket has been placed as Annexure C-2. The ticket had an OK status for journey from Delhi to Sydney via Singapore.
3. The complainant Shri Harpreet Singh accompanied by his relatives reached Indira Gandhi International Airport at Delhi on 25.2.1999 at 7.00 a.m. and got his ticket checked at the counter of Air India at about 8.40 a.m. when he was told that the ticket was not of OK status. It is alleged that the complainant Shri Harpreet Singh was to report at Sydney University on 1.3.1999 for higher studies. Shri Updesh Singh father of Shri Harpreet Singh contacted the Delhi Office of Air India who checked their computer list and told him that the ticket held by Shri Harpreet Singh did not figure in the computer list. The complainant was asked to wait till 10.30 a.m. but even by then, no arrangement could be made as the flight was fully booked. The complainant could not board the flight aforesaid.
The complainants then approached Air India Office at Connaught Place, New Delhi and they were also unable to help and told them that no seat was available in the flights of Air India for the next three days. Thereafter, the complainant hired services of a travel agent and paid him Rs. 3,000/- as fee. The said travel agent was able to persuade the Air India Authorities and the complainant No. 1 was allotted seat in the next Indian Air Lines home flight at 5.40 p.m. from Delhi to Bombay and thereafter in Qantas Airways from Bombay to Sydney.
It has been alleged by the complainants that acts of omission and commission of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service due to which the complainants were put to great mental tension and physical harassment as well as financial loss.
4. The complainant No. 2 then approached opposite parties No. 2-Air India and apprised them that the ticket in question was of OK status but the same was not honoured. He also approached opposite party No. 1-M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd. and apprised him of the factual position but they are alleged to have paid no relief heed. Thereafter, a legal notice was served on opposite party No. 1 but no action was taken by the opposite party No. 1 even on receipt of legal notice. This led to the filing of the complaint. The complainants claimed financial loss of Rs. 10,000/- on account of hiring services of travel agent, taxi charges from Indira Gandhi International Airport to Connaught Place and then to domestic Airport at New Delhi and Rs. 40,000/- for mental torture and physical harassment, agony and discomfort.
5. The opposite party No. 1 took a plea that the complainant No. 2 had no locus standi to file the complaint. It was, however, not disputed that the complainant purchased the Delhi-Sydney ti
