The court emphasized the importance of substantiated claims and deemed frivolous and vexatious complaints as an abuse of the legal process, warranting dismissal and cost imposition.

ORDER

M.L. Sahni, Member (Judicial)- This appeal filed by the complainant is directed against the order dated 18.3.2008 passed by the District Forum (Central) Kashmere Gate, Delhi whereby the complaint case No. 578/2004 filed by the Appellant had been dismissed.

2. The case of the Appellant before us is that he booked the return ticket from Delhi to New York on 13.12.2003 through the Respondent who is a Travel Agent. The ticket was booked of Royal Jordan Airlines and the Appellant paid a sum of Rs. 42,250 to the Respondent as fair of this ticket.

3. It is alleged that due to personal reasons Appellant could not board the flight on 13.12.2003 and requested the Respondent to book ticket on other Airline. The respondent got a ticket booked from Air India for Flight to be flown on 19th and 20th December, 2003.

4. The Appellant paid Rs. 9,500 extra as flight charges to the Respondent. Appellant reached the airport on the night intervening 19-20, December, 2003 at around 3.00 a.m. in the morning to board the flight scheduled to take off at 6.20 a.m. Appellant was shocked when he was not allowed to board the flight. He was told by Air India Authorities that he could not board flight directly on the said ticket as his green-card was issued prior to the year 1998, therefore, he required Transit Visa for USA.

5. The Appellant's plea is that the Respondent is a Travel Agency and must have known any change in the rules and had the respondent informed him about this New rule, he would have been avoided unnecessary harassment and embarrassment. The respondent allegedly assured the Appellant that no Transit Visa was required in case the Appellant travelled in Air India through Paris and further asked for a sum of Rs. 3,000 extra for boarding on 21.12.2003 but the said flight also could not be availed, as the Respondent delayed in getting the ticket prepared and was negligent in doing so. The appellant once again approached the respondent on 21.12.2003 and the respondent further asked to pay Rs. 3,000 extra and the appellant told the respondent that he also wants them to arrange another ticket for his minor daughter namely Kumari Ankush Jain who is American citizen and the respondent told the Appellant that it would be done.

6. It is also alleged that the Appellant informed the Respondent that his daughter had been over staying in India after expiry of her Visa, but the respondent assured the appellant that the appellant can fly along with his daughter and that as his daughter was an American citizen, she would not face any difficulty; that the Appellant can get revalidated the Visa from USA once he along with his daughter land in USA; that upon specific assurance by the respondent, the appellant booked a ticket for 24.12.2003 through Air India via Paris and the said flight was to fly through Bombay to New York via Paris.

7. The Respondent was paid sum of Rs. 46,725 along with Rs. 3,000 extra but when the appellant reached Bombay to board the morning connecting flight along with his daughter he was detained and stopped by Airport Authorities on the ground that Visa of Kumari Ankush Jain had expired and she would not be able to fly to New York on the said flight and because of the same the appellant not only missed the flight but being a businessman his visit for urgent business deal got expired and he suffered great trauma due to lapse on the part of the respondent.

8. In his complaint the Appellant had prayed for refund of Rs. 58,000 paid for booking the ticket but not availing the journey, along with compensation and cost of litigation.

9. The respondents who contested the appeal, stated in their reply that they always issued the valid ticket on demand by the Appellant and had not charged anything extra except the differential charges due to shifting of Airlines and revalidation charges that too were paid to the concerned Airlines and, hence, any allegations pertaining to charging extra, is nothing but an afterthought, to defeat and frustrate the ge