Back
2005 (2) CPR 240
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
M.A.A. Khan, President and Mrs. Sushma Tanwar, Member
M/s. Ritco Travels, Agent Air Lanka
Limited—Opp. Party/Appellant
versus
Mr. Dharmendra Purohit & Ors.—Complainant/Respondent
Appeal No. 1573/99
Decided on 5-8-2004
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sitaram Samota, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Balvendra Singh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
The appellant is entitled to his individual taxi fare and deduction on account of non-surrender of unused air ticket for refund from compensation for mental agony.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15 — Appeal against order of
District Forum granting 50,000/- as
compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation, for deficient Air Ticket booking service — Appellate court finding, complainant not returning ticket for refund — Respondents were ready to pay refund — Whether compensation be modified? (Yes) — Appeal partly allowed.
Held: Respondent no. 1 has stated that he had to hire taxi in order to take his family members and other friends to see him off at the airport for his departure for Bangkok. Respondent no. 1 appears to have hired the taxi not only for his travel but also travel for his family members and other friends. Had he traveled all alone from Jaipur to Delhi, as was expected of him, he would have spent a sum of Rs.300/- only on such journey. We would, therefore, restrict his claim for travelling expenses from Jaipur to Delhi at Rs.300/- only. (Para 9)
Taking into account respondent no. 1’s own fault in not surrendering the ticket to the appellant for refund of the amount spent by him on the purchase of the ticket and also keeping in mind that the appellant had all along been ready and willing to refund the price of the ticket to him, had he surrendered such ticket to the appellant, we would like to modify the impugned order in the following manner.(Para 10)
The impugned order shall stand modified to the effect that respondent no. 1 shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs.7,500/- only from the appellant and respondent no. 2, jointly and severely, towards compensation for mental agony and cost of journey from Jaipur to Delhi and litigation cost. In the event of his surrendering the ticket to the appellant, respondent no. 1 (the complainant) shall also be entitled to refund of Rs.11990/- by the appellant.(Para 11)
In the result the appeal is partly allowed with cost on parties.(Para 12)
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
M.A.A. Khan, President — This is an appeal from the order dated 15.6.1999 whereby the District Forum, Jaipur IInd/Jaipur has allowed complaint of Dharmendra Purohit (respondent- complaint) (complaint no. 180/96) against the appellant and Delhi Express (P) Ltd. (respondent no, 2) and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation to respondent no. 1 within a period of 30 days from the date of order failing which they would be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the aforesaid amount of Rs.51,000/-.
2. Relevant facts are these:
Dharmendra Purohit respondent no. 1 deals in precious and semi-precious stones at Jaipur. He filed his
complaint against the appellant and respondent no. 2 with the allegations that in order to undertake a business trip to Bangkok for promotion of his sales, he purchased tickets for air journey for Rs.11,990/- from Jaipur to Bangkok on 23.12.1995 from the appellant: M/s. Ritco Travels, which is an agent of Air Lanka Ltd., through M/s. Delhi Express Travels (P) Ltd. which is also engaged in similar business, that the tickets were stated to be quite confirmed but when he reached the airport for boarding the flight from the International Airport at Delhi he came to know that his name was not included in the list of passengers. He could, therefore, not undertake the journey and had, therefore, to suffer great business loss. His case was that apart from obtaining orders from his prospective buyers at Bangkok, he had been authorised by
certain dealers in gems and stones at Jaipur to obtain orders from the foreign buyers on which he would get his
commission. He thus claimed a total amount of Rs.2,22,741/- including refund of Rs. 11990/-, taxi fare at Rs.1651/- and cost of litigation.
3. The case put forth by respondent no. 2 was that it was the authorised ticketing agent by Thai Airways and not for Air Lanka. On 18.12.1995 it had received a request from Mr. Balbir of Sharma Airways for purchase of two tickets from Delhi to Bangkok for Mr. Dharmendra Purohit respondent no. 1 and one Mr. Nand Kishore, that since confirmed tickets were not available in the Thai Airways, it had accordingly advised respondent no. 1 to contact the appellant which were the ticketing agents for Air Lanka Ltd., that the appellant had
thereupon, with great efforts obtained two tickets, one for respondent no. 1 and the other for Sh. Nand Kishore. It was thus pleaded by respondent no. 2 that they had simply advised respondent no. 1 to contact the appellant for purchase of tickets for his journey by air and, therefore, respondent no. 2 had no relationship of consumer and provider of service with respondent no. 1.
4. The case put forth by the appellant was that it was on the request of respondent no. 2 that they had purchased two tickets for the flight of respondent no. 1 and his friend Nand Kishore on 23.12.1995 from Delhi to Bangkok, Although the tickets were confirmed as O.K. on telephone from the concerned general sales agent at Delhi but in case the respondent no. 1 and his friend could not utilise such tickets for one reason or the other, respondent no. 1 should have returned the tickets to the appellant for refund as was done by his friend Sh. Nand Kishore to whom the amount of his ticket was refunded.
5. The Forum, however, held that the appellant and respondent no. 2 rendered deficient services to respondent no. 1 and, therefore, it decreed the claim of respondent no. 1 to the extent and in the manner stated above.
6. It was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no relationship of hirer of service and provider of service between the respondent no. 1 and the appellant and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. Such argument has no force for the obvious reason that it was the appellant which had sold confirmed tickets to respondent no. 1. The price of the tickets included the commission of the appellant. May be that the appellan
