The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act and the assessment of fair and reasonable compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused by the deficiency in service.

JUDGMENT :

Sham Sunder (Retd.), President

This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two First Appeal Nos. 17 of 2014, titled as Air China Limited v. Smt. Sarita Bajaj and Ors., and 555 of 2013, titled as Smt. Sarita Bajaj and Anr. v. Grand Travel Planners (P) Ltd. and Anr. arising out of the order dated 14.11.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainants (now respondents No.1 and 2 in First Appeal No. 17 of 2014 and appellants, in First Appeal No. 555 of 2013), and directed Opposite Party No.2 (now appellant in First Appeal No.17 of 2014 and respondent No.2, in First Appeal No. 555 of 2013), as under:—

“In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.2 is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainants. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainants deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.2, and the same is allowed, qua it and is dismissed qua Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to:—

[a] To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainants;

[b] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.2; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] of para 14 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.”

2. However, complaint against Opposite Party No.1 (now Proforma respondent in First Appeal No. 17 of 2014 and respondent No.1, in First Appeal No. 555 of 2013) was dismissed, with no order as to costs, by the District Forum

3. The facts, in brief, are that complainant No.1, purchased two returned air tickets, from Opposite Party No.1, on 25.05.2012, for herself, and her minor son, namely Archit Bajaj, from New Delhi to San Francisco and back, by paying a sum of Rs.1.21 lacs, vide bill No.I1200217, Annexure C-1. Opposite Party No.1 issued two confirmed tickets, bearing Nos.999-9552577909 and 999-9552577910 (Route: DEL/PEK/SFO/PEK/DEL), for 31.5.2012. On 31.5.2012, the complainants boarded the Air China flight, from New Delhi, which was enroute Beijing (China), as per the arrangement.

4. Thereafter, on 10.7.2012, the complainants had taken the return flight, from San Francisco, USA, International Terminal, at 14.50 hours, and reached Beijing (China), at 17.55 hours, as per the scheduled time. At Beijing (China), the complainants came to know that the next flight (direct to New Delhi), had been cancelled, and no reason was disclosed to them. At Beijing (China), no food or other facilities were provided to the complainants. Complainant No.1 had to buy food, for herself and for her minor son, from her own pocket. After waiting for long hours, complainant No.1 came to know that an alternate flight was arranged, for New Delhi. The said flight was enroute Hong Kong – Thailand.

5. It was stated that, at Hong Kong, complainant No.1, had to take transit visa, for herself, and for her minor son. The alternate flight reached New Delhi, late, by more than 24 hours, from the scheduled time, due to which, the complainants and the husband of complainant No.1, as also father of complainant No.2, who reached New Delhi, to receive them, had also to suffer a lot of mental agony, and physical harassment. The Opposite Parties were asked to compensate the complainants, as also the husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2, who underwent a tremendous mental agony and physical harassment, on account of delay of 24 hours, in reaching the flight, but to no avail. Eventually a, legal notice dated 08.04.2013, was also served upon the Opposite Parties, which was not even replied to. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the O