Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sunil Kumar Garg, President, T.P. Gupta and Vimla Sethia, Members
AIR INDIA - Appellant
Versus
ASHA GOSWAMI AND ANR. - Respondents
Appeal No. 1984 of 2003
Decided on : 04-07-2008
Mr. K.M. Mathur, Advocate, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the responsibility of the service provider, as the principal, for ensuring the provision of services as agreed upon, and the consumer's entitlement to compensation for inconvenience and mental stress under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Air Travel - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 14(1)(d), Section 21(b)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly focusing on the definition of 'deficiency in service' under Section 2(1)(g) and the rights of consumers under Section 14(1)(d). The court emphasized the responsibility of the airline and its agents in ensuring the provision of services as agreed upon in the confirmed ticket, highlighting the consumer's entitlement to compensation for inconvenience and mental stress.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased an air ticket for a journey from Delhi to Washington, but was not allowed to board the flight on the scheduled date, causing inconvenience and mental stress. The appellant contested the complaint, arguing that they were not responsible for the ticket issuance and the mistake made by the agent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was responsible for the deficiency in service as the ticket was issued by their authorized agent. The court upheld the District Forum's decision to award compensation to the complainant for the inconvenience and mental stress suffered.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the responsibility of the appellant for the deficiency in service, the validity of the ticket, and the entitlement of the complainant to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant, as the principal, was responsible for the deficiency in service, emphasizing the consumer's right to compensation for inconvenience and mental stress under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, affirming the District Forum's decision to award compensation to the complainant.
ORDER
Sunil Kumar Garg, President - This appeal has been filed by the appellant which was opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum against order dated 24.9.2003 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur Il, camp Jaipur in Complaint No. 595/2000 by which the complaint of the complainant-respondent No. 1 was partially allowed against the appellant in the manner that the appellant would pay a sum of Rs. 30,000 for inconvenience to complainant respondent No. 1 and further to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 as costs within one month and complaint against respondent No. 2 which was opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum was rejected.
2. It arises in the following circumstances
That the complainant-respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Jaipur II, camp Jaipur on 13.3.1998 inter alia stating that on 31.3.1997 for going from Delhi to Washington (USA) the complainant-respondent No. l had purchased air ticket bearing No. Q 098 4211566897 of Air India with Flight No. 3001 through the medium of respondent No. 2 Komal Travels after paying Rs. 52,870 for journey to be made from Delhi on 6.4.1997. It was further stated that the said ticket was a confirmed and was marked O.K. It was further stated that thereafter complainant-respondent No. 1 along with her family members had gone to Delhi and had reached the International Airport where she found that her name was not in the list of passengers who were allowed to be boarded in the said plane. It was further stated that for that she felt inconvenience, discomfort and mental stress and ultimately she was allowed to go on 7.4.1997 and for that inconvenience and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant the present complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the appellant on 6.1.1999 and the main case of the appellant was that since the ticket in question was issued by Janta Travels and since that was not made a party, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable and further in place of Rs. 52,870 the complainant-respondent No. 1 had paid flight charges to the tune of Rs. 37,641. It was further stated in the reply that the said ticket for flight No. 3001 was belonging to a flight of United Airlines and why she was not allowed to board that flight on 6.4.1997 that could only be answered by the staff of United Airlines and as such United Airlines was also a necessary party and thus no case complaint be dismissed.
A reply was also filed by respondent No. 2 on 7.10.1999 before the District Forum and respondent No. 2 had taken the same pleas which were taken by appellant in its reply.
After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Jaipur II, camp Jaipur through impugned order dated 24.9.2003 had allowed the complaint of the complainant-respondent No. 1 inter alia holding that since the ticket in question was issued for a journey that was to take place on 6.4.1997 but since on that day she had not made journey and she was allowed to go on 7.4.1997, therefore, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
Aggrieved from the said order dated 24.9.2003 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur II, camp Jaipur, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.
3. In this appeal the following contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant:
(i) That if any ticket had been issued by the travelling agent of airlines and if any wrong entry regarding despatch of timing pertaining to the flight, etc. had been made by the agent, for that principal could not be held liable.
(ii) Further since the Janta Travels was recognised as an agent of the appellant, therefore, appellant had no concern with Komal Travels respondent No. 2.
(iii) Further it has been argued that if any mistake had been committed by the agent, for that principal could not be held liable. Thus, the District Forum has committed serious error and illegality in decreeing the claim of the complainant-respondent No. 1. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside and th
