S.K. Kulshrestha, President— This appeal by the opposite party assails the order dated 30th October, 2007 passed by the District Forum, Indore in case No.519/2007. By the said order the District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties, severally and collectively, to refund a sum of Rs.2,822 charged in excess for rescheduling of the air ticket and to pay Rs.15,000 for the mental agony suffered. A cum of Rs.1,000 has been awarded as costs.

2. The respondent had brought the said complaint for recovery of the said amount Rs. 2,822 and for mental agony and harassment Rs. 20,000 on the premises that she was a resident of Indore but, she was in Delhi and she had to take the examination in March 2007 of M.A.(Final History) of Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Indore and, therefore, through her brother she got a ticket reserved on 28.12.2006 for 27.3.2007 at apex rate of promotional tariff for a sum of Rs.1,177. An ticket was issued to her. However, when she realized that her first paper shall convene on 26.3.2007, she informed her brother to get the flight rescheduled. On 15.2.2007 rescheduling charges of Rs.208 were deposited. However when she went to board the flight on 25.3.2007 at Delhi Air Port she was not allowed to board the aircraft as her ticket had not been rescheduled and she was asked to pay full tariff of Rs.3,949. After discussion when the complainant realized that further discussion will add to harassment the difference of Rs.2,822 was paid and then she was permitted to board the plane. In close proximity of her examination she was subjected to avoidable harassment and undue amount was exacted from her.

3. The defence of the appellant Air Lines was two fold: one, that the ticket having been purchased for commencement of the journey from Delhi, Indore had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint and two, that the amount of Rs.208 for rescheduling was not received and, therefore, there was no occasion to consider rescheduling of the ticket before the passenger actually reported at the Air Port.

4. Insofar as the objection to the jurisdiction concerned, the District Forum has referred to the decision of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, IV (2006) CPJ 403, to the effect that even if the cause of action accrues at the Air Port from where the journey is commenced, the termination of journey is also a place having jurisdiction and the complainant can elect between the two places. We are, therefore, the considered view that Indore being the place of termination of the journey for which ticket, had already been purchased, had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

5. As regard the second contention, it is not denied that a ticket had been purchased for Rs.1,177. What has been denied is that the amount of Rs.208 having not been received there was no occasion to consider rescheduling of the ticket. The respondent-complainant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with a document of IClCI Bank. Since the document is relevant we allow this additional evidence. At the appellate stage. This letter reads as under:

“Please refer to your captioned latter regarding the beneficiary details of the internet transaction done from account No. 000901539358 for Rs.208 on 15.2.2007. We wish to inform you that the amount, as per our records has successfully been transferred to the account of the biller, M/s Deccan Airways”.

6. Thus, it obviates the all doubts with regard to the appellant having not received Rs. 208 on 15.2.2007. It is clear that even after the rescheduling charges were deposited that the appellant did not take steps to reschedule the flight. It is the significant part on which the appellant is dwelling, if the rescheduling would have been done it would not have entailed payment of any extra amount. Under these circumstances, inaction on the part of the Air Lines resulted in grave harassment to the lady student in close proximity of her e