Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President;
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor & Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
PEARL INTERNATIONAL TOURS AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD.—Appellant
versus
AVTAR SINGH SAHOTA & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal No. 172 of 2004—Decided on 15.7.2004
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Ajay Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Abnash Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3: None.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in addressing consumer disputes and determining the rights and liabilities of the parties involved.
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Air Ticket - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(x), Section 2(1)(zg), Section 2(1)(zn), Section 2(1)(zp), Section 2(1)(zw), Section 2(1)(zx), Section 2(1)(zz), Section 21, Section 27] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including the definition of 'consumer', 'complaint', 'deficiency', 'service', 'unfair trade practice', 'goods', 'service', 'unfair contract', 'restrictive trade practice', 'unfair or restrictive trade practice', 'defect', 'complainant', 'District Forum', 'State Commission', 'National Commission', and the powers of the District Forum and the State Commission. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties involved in the consumer dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sought a return air ticket from Delhi to London for a six-month duration but was issued a ticket for a two-month duration. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed that the transaction was between the complainant's son and the appellant, and there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had issued a ticket for a shorter duration than requested and charged a higher amount. The court also found that the appellant had misrepresented the nature of the ticket and engaged in unfair trade practices. The court upheld the complainant's version and granted the reliefs sought.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity and nature of the air ticket issued, the privity of contract, misrepresentation, and unfair trade practices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented by the complainant and his son, including affidavits and receipts, to establish the misrepresentation and unfair trade practices by the appellant. The court also considered the lack of evidence and non-appearance of the third party involved in the transaction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and costs were imposed on the appellant.
Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—M/s. Pearl International Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd., O.P. No. 1 of Complaint Case No. 83 of 2000 filed by respondent Shri Avtar Singh Sahota has come up in appeal against order dated 1.3.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] vide which the appellant has been directed to pay to the respondent/complainant Shri Avtar Singh Sahota a sum of Rs. 22,500/- being one-half of Rs. 45,000/- as the price of the return air ticket; Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for taxi fare and conveyance charges in the United Kingdom; Misc. expenses of Rs. 2,420/- spent on courier mail, international phone calls and U.K. postage besides a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental and physical tension, harassment agony etc. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded as costs of litigation.
2. The complainant Shri Avtar Singh Sahota received information about the death of Shri Paramjit Singh married to the sister of the complainant and residing in the U.K. This led to the urgent and immediate visit by the complainant/respondent Shri Avtar Singh Sahota to U.K. with a view to offer his condolence to his sister and to bring her back to India. The complainant applied for visa, which was granted to him by the High Commission of U.K. for the period from 26.4.1999 to 26.10.1999 vide Annexure C-2. The complainant/respondent through his son Shri Manohar Deepak Singh approached the appellant with a views to get refund ticket Delhi-London-Delhi for a validity period of six months. The appellant furnished the information that such return ticket Delhi-London-Delhi with validity period of four months only would cost Rs. 45,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as an advance and left his passport with the appellant on 27.4.1999. The appellant promised to deliver a valid ticket against balance payment of Rs. 40,000/- on 28.4.1999. On 28.4.1999, the appellant handed over ticket bearing No. 1-074-3757806894-6 on KLM Airlines (Annexure C-5) and also issued three receipts (Annexures C-6, C-7 and C-8) and also returned the passport of the complainant and proceeded to Delhi to catch the flight to London. On way, the complainant found that he had been issued a return ticket valid for two months only and the details of Rs. 45,000/- received from him were mentioned in the receipts as under:
(i)
Rs. 5,000/-
Advance
dt. 27.4.99
(ii)
Rs. 28,257/-
Final Payment
dt. 28.4.99
(iii)
Rs. 10,875/-
Foreign Exchange
dt. 27.4.99
3. The foreign exchange issued was worth US $ 250 though the complainant had not asked for the foreign exchange nor he was in need of it because he had his relatives residing in U.K. to support him. Since the complainant had to board the flight at Delhi Airport and he was seen off at IGI International Airport at Delhi by his son Shri Manohar Deepak Singh who contacted the appellant and informed him about the ticket being valid for only two months and further informed that if the original ticket was returned to him, he would get it extended for a period of four months. The complainant was contacted by his son on phone on 10.5.199. The ISD call costed Rs. 360/-. The complainant immediately sent original ticket through courier for necessary correction by the O.P. No. 1/appellant and a sum of Rs. 2,010/- was spent as courier charges. The air ticket was handed over to the appellant for necessary correction but despite best efforts made by the son of the complainant, the said ticket could not be extended nor the appellant could get a confirmed reservation for the return journey in the first week of August, 1999 as desired by him. The appellant issued the return ticket on 22.5.1999 (C-1) valid upto 29.8.1999 but it could not confirm the same for return journey. The son of the complainant then approached P No. 3-M/s. World Air Pvt. Ltd., GSA-KLM and Northwest Airlines at Chandigarh and enquired about the status of ticket issued
