IMPORTANT POINT
Even where the ticket has been issued by the agent of the Airlines, the principal is liable for the act of the agent.

S.K. Kulshreshtha, President—This case depicts a classic example of the embarrassment of a honeymoon couple prevented from boarding the flight despite confirmed reservation well in advance; resulting in cancellation of all onward reservations. Misbehaviour by the Airlines staff has also been ascribed.

2. The appellants (opposite parties) have assailed the order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the District Forum, Bhopal in complaint case No. 114/06. The respondents after their nuptial wanted to go for honeymoon by means of flight no. 9W 3309 for which they had booked the tickets quite in advance. The Airlines personnel had issued the ticket for flight on 27.2.2004. The ticket being a confirmed (OK) ticket, the parties rested assured about the programme and onward reservations. For travelling by this flight, the complainants reached at the Airport an hour in advance but they were told by the staff of the Airlines that they would not be carried by the said aircraft and they also misbehaved and stated that since there was no place in the aeroplane, they cannot be accommodated. The complainants were perplexed as they had booked onward accommodations and reservations and on account of the adamance of the staff of the Jet Airlines in not permitting them to go by the said flight for which they were booked in advance, the entire programme had to be cancelled and accommodations reserved had to be the cancelled in which a substantial loss occasioned to the complainants. According to the complainants this was clearly a glaring case of deficiency in service.

3. It is not disputed that there were two flights to Delhi from Bhopal, one flight in the morning being flight No. 9W 3309 while the evening flight was No. 9W 3307. The appellants took the plea that on 27.2.2004 no seat was available. The complainants had purchased low costs tickets and therefore, it was not possible to change their manifesto. The ticket was for the evening flight and, therefore, they were requested to come in the evening.

4. Before proceeding further it is necessary to refer to the cases cited. The first contention of the counsel for the appellants was that the ticket having been purchased from agent, the Airlines could not have been saddled with the liability. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the Air India v. Harpreet Singh.1 In this decision contention that Air India was not liable for the fault of agent was rejected. Likewise in the decision of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Royal Nepal Airlines v. Vishal Arya & Anr;2 in which when the flight was cancelled though passengers with confirmed tickets were to leave by that flight, the Airlines was held vicariously liable for the acts of its agents and it was held to be a case of deficiency in service.

5. From the above decisions, it is clear that even where the ticket has been issued by the agent of the Airlines, the principal is liable for the act of the agent. In his statement the husband has woed that how he had approached the Airlines in time for checkup and boarding and how unceremoniously he was prevented in the presence of his newly wedded wife. On correspondence with the Airlines, between the father of the bridegroom and the Airlines, the Airlines agreed that the booking was for flight 9W no. 3307, but their tickets were issued for flight no. 9W 3309. The General Manager of the Airlines informed that it would not be possible to pin point as to where the mistake occurred, but it has not been denied that the mistake did occur.

6. The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi in Indian Airlines v. Renu Gupta & Ors;3 has observed that even if tickets are purchased from the agent, the principal is required to inform the passenger about the change in the time of the flight and plea that it was conveyed to the agent for onward communication, is not discharge of the obligation. W