AIR INDIA vs YOGENDRA HIRALAL PAREKH

WE intend to dispose of the above title three Revision Petitions by this order as the facts in all these cases are similar. These Revision Petitions have been filed against the orders dated 31.8.1995 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu (for short State Commission).

THE facts are that the Respondents purchased Air India tickets from Air India''s Agent-Speed Bird Travels Pvt. Ltd., Vellore for travel to Moscow and back. The Complainants were to leave India on 10.5.1992 for Moscow and return on 16.5.1992. The tickets were confirmed both ways. The Complainants had also obtained visas from Russian Consulate for stay in Russia from 10.5.1992 to 16.5.1992. The Respondent-Complainant left India by Air India Flight on 10.5.1992. The Opposite Party refused to accommodate them on the ground that they had come to Moscow on excursion fare and as per the rule they had to stay in Moscow for a minimum period of 10 days. Thus the Complainants were told that they could travel back to India only on 19.5.1992 even though they were having valid visas only upto 16.5.1992. Due to this action of the Opposite Party the Complainants had to over-stay in Moscow without valid visas and suffered mental pain and agony. They had to stay at a Hotel in Moscow upto 19.5.1992 spending 300 US$ per day and another 25 US$ per day for transport and incidental expenses from Moscow Airport to their hotel. The Complainants alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party i.e. Air India and filed a compliant before the District Forum in Madras claiming Rs. 28,900/- being the amount spent by each Complainant in Moscow plus Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental pin, agony and hardship. The Air India contested the complaints averring that the agent of Air India who issued the tickets was a necessary party. The tickets issued to the Complainants were on economic class excursion fare basis which required a minimum stay of 10 days in Moscow. The Opposite Party''s Manager at Moscow expressed his inability to allow the Complainants to travel on 16.5.1992. Therefore, it was stressed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Air India and hence it was not liable to pay any amount to the Complainants.

THE District Forum held that tickets issued to the Complainants was just like other ordinary tickets and it was nowhere mentioned on the tickets that those were issued on excursion fare basis. No rule was printed on the ticket that the Complainant had to stay for minimum period of 10 days in foreign country. Air India contended that its agent while issuing the ticket had committed mistake for which they were not liable. The District Forum rejected that contention on the ground that the Agent was not the agent of the Complainant but it was the agent of the opposite party itself and if the agent commits any mistake the principal is certainly liable for the same. It was also held by the District Forum that the Complainant had obtained visa for 6 days only and, therefore, the Opposite Party should have prevented the Complainants from travelling to Moscow on verifying the said tickets at Delhi itself as there was no visa for 10 days. Considering all these facts the District Forum was of the opinion that because the Complainants were refused accommodation on a flight on 16.5.1992 the Complainants had to suffer mentally as the visa was only for 6 days and the Complainants had also to spend a huge amount for their extended stay for lodging, transport etc. Therefore, the District Forum directed Air India to pay Rs. 28,900 to each of the Complainants, the amount which was actually spent by them and Rs. 10,000/- were awarded to each of the Complainants as compensation.

FEELING aggrieved by the orders of the District Forum both the parties filed separate appeals. Each of the Complainants in his appeal to the State Commission prayed for enhancement of the amount of the compensation and damages while the Opposite Party prayed for setting aside the award in toto made by the District Forum. The State Commission dismissed the appeals of Air India holding that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the IATA Agent of the Opposite Party, Air India for which Air India is vicariously responsible. He had issued tickets to the respective Complainants for his travel to Moscow on 10.5.1992 and return from Moscow on 16.5.1992 knowing that in respect of excursion fare ticket minimum stay of 10 days in Moscow was necessary. It was also held by the State Commission that the Complainants visas were expiring on 16.5.1992 and they were having confirmed tickets for return on 16.5.1992. Therefore, the Opposite Party at Moscow should have allowed the Complainants to travel back to India on 16.5.1992. The appeals of the Complainants were also dismissed holding that compensation awarded to each of the Complainants was fair and reasonable.

AIR India, the Opposite Party has challenged the orders passed by the State Commission by way of these Revision Petitions filed by them before this Commission. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records carefully. Before proceeding further we may mention here that it has not been challenged on behalf of the Respondent that if one travels economic class on excursion fare basis to a foreign country then minimum stay of 10 days in that country is necessary before he returns back. It is also undisputed that on the said ticket ''YH3M'' was mentioned under the column of "Ticket Designator". According to the Opposite Party ''Y'' denotes ''Economy'', ''H'' denotes ''High Season'', ''E'' denotes ''Excursion'' and ''3M'' denotes ''3 months validity''.

IN reply to the notice received by the Air India issued on behalf of the Complainants it was mentioned :- "2. Our investigation reveals that the above named passengers had approached our Reservations Counter at Moscow Air India Office, where they were informed by our Receptionist that they had not completed the minimum period of stay of ten days in Moscow. They would, therefore not be permitted to travel on our flight on 16th May, 1992 in accordance with rules and regulations governing the ''YE3M'' fare tickets held by them. 3. To this effect our Manager-Moscow had very politely and clearly expressed his inability to accept these passengers and spent nearly one and a half hours with them trying to help them by showing them various alternatives. These passengers finally offered to pay the difference in fare to convert their tickets into full fare economy class tickets. However, due to shortage of funds they could not do so. They also tried to encash some travelers cheques brought by them to Moscow and some given by their friends. Unfortunately these travelers cheques could not be encashed by the concerned bank due to some documentation problem. 4. The passengers once again returned to the office of our Manager-Moscow who advised them to extend their visas and inform their offices in Madras to get in touch with Air India Madras, pay the fare difference in the form of PTA (Prepaid Ticket Advise), on the strength of which we in Moscow would instruct Aeroflot to reissue these documents for their travel on 16th May, 1992. The passengers confirmed to Manager-Moscow that they had already telephoned their office in Madras and that the PTA with the fare would be forthcoming. However, no PTA was received with the result tickets could not be rewritten for travel on 16th May, 1992."

Each of the Complainants has not filed any affidavit to controvert the contention of Air India mentioned above. In view of the above facts it cannot be said that Air India refused the Complainants to travel to India on 16.5.1992 even on payment of difference in the fare. The Complainants did not pay the difference in the fare and therefore, Air India did not allow the Complainants to travel on 16.5.1992 as they had not completed their 10 days stay in the foreign country. The main argument of each of the Complainants was that the mistake has been committed by the Agent of the Air India who have issued the tickets for return on 16.5.1992 on excursion fare basis when he must be knowing that 10 days stay was necessary in the foreign country before returning to India. If the Agent has committed a mistake, Air India cannot be held responsible for the same. In F.A. No. 60 of 1991 titled India Airlines Corporation v. Patel Ramubhai Shankar Lal and Anr. decided on 10th December, 1992 this Commission had remarked in Para 7 :- "7. Though M/s. Vyas Travels Pvt. Ltd. was a ticketing agent authorised to sell Indian Airlines ticket and was in that capacity and to that limited extent an agent of the Indian Airlines, it was also functioning as an agent of the Complainant engaged by him for booking his air ticket Ahmedabad to Delhi. The authority conferred on the ticketing agent by Indian Airlines was only to sell and issue tickets in accordance with the flight operation schedule and timings notified by the Airlines. In making the wrong entry regarding the departure timing of the flight in question, the travel agent had manifestly acted contrary to the instructions of his principal namely, the Indian Airlines Corporation. The said wrongful act of the travel agent was beyond the scope of its limited authority and for any consequential loss to a third party arising therefrom, the liability will only be that of the travel agent and not of the principal."

The above observations apply to the present cases. Therefore, Air India cannot be held responsible for the mistake committed by its Agent.

AIR India has filed the letter issued by M/s. Speed Birds Pvt. Ltd., Authorised Travel Agent which is at page 22 of the Paper Book wherein it has been clearly admitted that "the tickets were issued by us from your ticket stock and we do admit by oversight we failed to adhere to the minimum stay requirements in Moscow." Hence, the Complainants can have the remedy against the Travel Agent.

IT is urged on behalf of the Complainants that the mistake should have been pointed out to them when they checked in for boarding the flight to Moscow as their visas were only for six days but at that time the concerned officer did not care to compare the facts with the visa. Such mistakes can occur when so many persons check in before boarding flight and on the basis of this fact Air India cannot be held responsible for the mistake. In the light of the above observations, we accept all the three above titled Petitions and set aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission and dismiss the complaints filed against the Revision Petitioner-Air India. The Complainants will, however, be at liberty to have their remedy, it advised, against the Travel Agent. We leave the parties to bear their own costs in all these Revision Petitions.