Back
2005 (3) CPR 475
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
R.S. Mongia, President, C.P. Budhiraja and Mrs. Jasbir Kapoor, Members
Royal Jordanian & Ors.—Appellants
versus
Nanak Singh & Anr.—Respondents
Appeal No. 670 of 2005
Decided on 22-8-2005
Counsel for the parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Sh. Ashok Giri, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
If seat is not provided by Air line to a person holding a confirmed ticket, it will amount to deficiency in service.
Headnote:(i)Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24A — Limitation — Complainant was denied boarding from Delhi to Greece despite O.K. status ticket by appellant-opp. party on 2-3-2000 — Before filing present complaint, complainant got his earlier complaint dismissed as withdrawn on 19-8-2002 with liberty to file fresh complaint on same cause of action in view of some technical defect — Present complaint could not be said to be barred by limitation.(Para 8)
(ii)Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 11(2)(iv) — Territorial jurisdiction — Complainant purchased O.K. status ticket for journey from Greece to Delhi and back from opp. party in Greece — He was denied boarding from Delhi for return journey — Complaint claiming compensation — Opp. party had branch offices at many places in India including one at Jalandhar (Punjab) — Forum in Punjab had territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaint.(Para 9)
(iii)Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 12 and 17 — Complainant was denied board for his journey from Delhi to Greece despite O.K. status ticket — As he could not reach Greece by stipulated date of visa, he was denied entry in the country — He was settled in Greece to earn money and had been earning about Rs. 40,000/- a month — Dist. Forum allowing complaint awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs — Appeal — Denial of boarding despite confirmed status ticket was deficiency in service — Compensation amount could not be said to be on higher side.(Paras 10 to 14)
Result : Appeal dismissed.
R. S. Mongia, President — This is an appeal filed by four appellants, namely, (1) Royal Jordanian, G-56, Connaught
Circus, New Delhi; (2) Station Manager (Mr. Nihal Ali Tally), G-56, Connaught Circus, New Delhi; (3) Royal Jordanian, B.M. C. Chowk, Jalandhar City and (4) Directors, Managing Directors, Partners of Royal Jordanian, G-56, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, who were opposite parties before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called the “District Forum”) in a complaint filed by one Nanak Singh s/o S. Bikkar Singh, which has been allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 21.3.2005 in the following terms :-
“25. Therefore, considering the abovesaid facts and circumstances of the case, claim of the complainant in the first complaint, we award the total compensation to the complainant of Rs.4,50,000/- as claimed by him as loss of damages and mental tension and the respondent would pay the other expenditure for Rs. 50,000/- expenditure of his future efforts to obtain the visa permit and entry and air ticket and loss of litigation. As such, he is entitled to Rs. 5,00,000/- in all. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room".
2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the appeal are that complainant Nanak Singh, aged about 30 years, filed Complaint No.416-DF-2003 on 1.10.2003 alleging that he is holder of Indian passport, which was renewed at Athens on 22.11.1999 and is valid up to 15.4.2008. He had settled in Greece in order to earn money. He further alleged that he had come to India from Greece and he had purchased a return air-ticket from appellant No.l’s office in Greece for journey from Greece to India and back. On the passport of the complainant, concerned authorities in Greece had mentioned that he must re-enter Greece on or before 6.3.2000. He got his air-ticket confirmed from the Royal Jordanian airlines for his return journey from Delhi to Greece for 2.3.2000 to enable him to reach Greece well in time before the expiry of the re-entry visa. On the air-ticket status of his ticket was mentioned as ‘O.K.'; meaning thereby that the ticket was confirmed. However, when he went to board the plane at New Delhi for his return journey to Greece on 2-3-2000, he was informed by the opposite parties that due to over-loading in all the Airlines he could not be put on the flight and he was further told that he would be sent by a flight on 4.3.2000. The complainant again reported for boarding the flight on 4.3.2000 and in fact he had boarded the flight and was made to sit in the aircraft but was later on asked to de-board on the pretext of over-loading he made a request to the opposite parties that he had to re-enter Greece before 6.3.2000 and he should not be de-boarded, but his request was not acceded to. Opposite Parties No.l and 2 approached Opposite Party No.4 to grant permission to the complainant to re-enter Greece. The complainant was, however, put on the flight after some days on 25.3.2000 and, when he reached Greece, he was not allowed to enter Greece since his entry permit had expired on 6.3.2000. He had to file an appeal before the Greece Authorities by spending a huge amount that he should be allowed to re-enter Greece. However, the same was rejected and he was sent back to India with bag and baggage. Before filing the present complaint, the complainant had filed an earlier complaint No.72-DF of 2002, but the same had been got dismissed as withdrawn on 19.8.2002, because of some alleged technical defects with permission to file fresh one on the same cause of action, which was granted.
3. It was alleged in the complaint that due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not allowing him to board the flight on 2.3.2000 or 4.3.2000 despite having confirmed ticket for journey from India to Greece, the c
