AIR INDIA vs ASHA GOSWAMI

-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.

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. 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 this appeal be allowed.

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and gone through the entire materials available on record.

IN this case there is no dispute on the point that the air ticket in question bearing No. Q 0984211566897 though the payment was received by Komal Travels respondent No. 2 but ticket was issued by Janta Travels as the ticket bears the seal of Janta Travels by seeing the air ticket in question. There is no dispute on the point that the ticket was confirmed and was marked O. K. and the journey from Delhi was to take place on 6. 4. 1997.

FROM the pleadings of the parties it is also clear that whatsoever may be the reasons the complainant-respondent No. l was not allowed to make a journey on 6. 4. 1997 though she was having a confirmed ticket of Air India the appellant. There is also no dispute on the point that the complainant was allowed to make a journey on 7. 4. 1997 on the same ticket, meaning thereby the said ticket was a genuine ticket issued on behalf of the appellant. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case the question for consideration is whether the findings of the District Forum decreeing the claim could be sustained or not.

IN our considered opinion, so far as the argument that respondent No. 2 was not authorised agent of the appellant is concerned, it may be stated here that respondent No. 2 had simply charged the money from complainant respondent No. 1 but actually the ticket was issued by Janta Travels which was authorised agent of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant could not be allowed to take this plea that ticket was not issued by its agent and it is held that ticket was issued by Janta Travels which was the agent of the appellant.

FURTHER when the ticket in question was duly issued by Janta Travels, the agent of the appellant on behalf of Air India and the ticket was O. K. and confirmed one for journey that was to be taken place on 6. 4. 1997 from Delhi to Washington, and if the journey was not allowed to complainant respondent No. 1, for that appellant would certainly be responsible and the District Forum had rightly held so. The question that Flight 3001 was a flight of United Airlines could not make any difference so far as the case of complainant respondent No. 1 is concerned as the ticket which was issued by Janta Travels was a ticket of Air India and flight was also mentioned as 3001. When this being the position if on a confirmed ticket the complainant was not allowed to make the journey on 6. 4. 1997 that would certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

The most important question in this case is that though the ticket which was issued in favour of the complainant-respondent No. 1 was for a journey that was to take place on 6. 4. 1997 but on the same ticket when the complainant-respondent No. l was allowed to travel from Delhi to Washington on 7. 4. 1997, it clearly means that the ticket was genuine one and was rightly issued by the agent of the appellant.

HAD that ticket would have no concern with the appellant, the appellant would have not allowed the complainant-respondent No. 1 to make the journey on the same ticket. Therefore, the findings recorded by the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in not allowing the journey to complainant-respondent No. l on 6. 4. 1997 are liable to be confirmed one. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that even there was any mistake but that too was committed by the agent of the appellant and for that appellant, the principal could not be held liable. For that reliance has been placed on the decision of Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in the case of Datar Singh Bajar v. India Manager, Gulf Air and Ors. , reported in III (2002) CPJ 69.

IN our considered opinion, this authority would not be helpful to the appellant in the present case because here the dispute was not in respect of agent in the schedule of timing, etc. Here the specific case of the complainant was that when the confirmed ticket was issued for a journey to be taken on 6. 4. 1997 and in the list of persons who were to go to USA, the name of the complainant was not there and her name was included on 7. 4. 1997. Therefore, the facts of the present case stand distinguished from the facts of the above case in the manner that in the present case the agent had rightly issued the ticket but due to negligence on the part of the employees of the appellant at Delhi, the name of the complainant was not included in the list of persons who were to go to Washington on 6. 4. 1997. On point of compensation The District Forum had awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000 and it may be stated here that compensation awarded must be just, fair and reasonable one and in this case since the complainant-respondent No. 1 with her family members had to stay one day more at Delhi and further the persons who were to receive her at Washington were also felt inconvenience as she had not made the journey on 6. 4. 1997, therefore, in such a situation the complainant-respondent No. 1 must have felt inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress and for that if a sum of Rs. 30,000 was awarded, that could not be said to be unjust in any manner. For the reasons stated above, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the District Forum in decreeing the claim of the complainant-respondent No. 1. The findings of the District Forum are based on correct appreciation of entire materials available on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity, illegality and perversity and hence, no interference is called for with the same and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.