AIR INDIA LIMITED vs D.P.KOCHAR

BY this judgment we propose to dispose of two appeals, i.e., Appeal No. 1036 of 2003 as also Appeal No. 1033 of 2003, as both the appeals have been filed against the same impugned order of the District Forum dated 16.4.2003 by which the complaint of Mr. D.P. Kochar was partially allowed in the following terms: "...The complainant must have incurred expenses for stay during night at the Air Port and he must have also suffered mental pain and agony. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case compensation of Rs. 20,000 appears to be reasonable. Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as costs to the complainant. Compliance of the order be done within one month of the receipt of copy of this order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties."

Appeal No. 1036 of 2003 has been filed by Air India (opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum) for setting aside the order of the District Forum against the appellant, whereas the other Appeal No. 1033 of 2003 has been filed by complainant Mr. D.P. Kochar for enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant D.P. Kochar had bought a return Air India ticket from Ottawa (Canada) to New Delhi and back on 27.9.1999. However, while he was in India, he changed his programme of departure and asked respondent No. 2, i.e., Janta Travel Pvt. Ltd., Bharat Nagar, Ludhiana (Opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum), who are the travel agents for Air India to issue a new ticket. Said travel agent issued a new Air India ticket on 14.3.2000 bearing No. 098-4420-412-109, photo copy of which was attached as Annexure C-4 with the complaint. The route and the status of the ticket issued was as follows: It may be observed here that the ticket which was issued was on the ticket folder of Air India, which included the Air Canada Flight AC-863 on 18.3.2000 from London to Toronto. It was alleged that when the complainant boarded the flight AI-317 at New Delhi his luggage was booked through and through to Toronto. When he reached London and went to collect his boarding pass at the Air Canada counter for boarding Air Canada Flight AC-863 on 18.3.2000, he was told that as per the bookings shown on the computer, his status was wait-listed No. 1 and his seat was not confirmed and there no request had been received by Air Canada from Air India to reserve a seat for the complainant on 18.3.2000 in Air Canada Flight AC-863. He was denied his travel on AC-863 flight on 18.3.2000. However, he was put on Flight No. AC-857 the next day. He suffered great inconvenience at the Air Port as nobody looked after him despite his having a confirmed ticket of Air Canada Flight No. 863. He wrote a letter from Canada to Air India in Toronto on 13.4.2000 informing as to how, despite his having confirmed ticket of Air Canada flight, he was not allowed to board the same on the ground that in fact there was no confirmation in the printout on the computer. He claimed compensation of 4000 US dollars for the inconvenience, harassment, etc., which he allegedly suffered at London (Heathrow) Airport. A letter was received by the complainant from Air India dated 16.6.2000 (copy Annexure C-6 with the complaint), in which it was mentioned as under: "This is further to our telephone conversation of last week, as well as our letter A-18-00-0427 dated April 19, 2000 regarding your letter of complaint dated April 13, 2000 on our return trip from Delhi to Toronto, on March 18, 2000. We sincerely regret the delay in reverting back to you with respect to the incorrect reissuance of your ticket indicating that the AC flight AC 863 on March 18, 2000 from London to Toronto was confirmed. Having investigated the matter without our offices in Jullundur, Chandigarh and Ludhiana, we note that there was a mistake committed by the Air India General Sales Agency (GSA) staff, at both Chandigarh and Ludhiana. The GSA staff at Chandigarh whilst informing the Ludhiana office, of the confirmation of your flights for travel from Delhi, Mumbai and London, inadvertently also informed you that the London/Toronto flight on Air Canada was also confirmed. Whilst your ticket was re-issued by the office, they should have noticed that you London/Toronto flight was not confirmed, which again was overlooked. Please note, disciplinary action of the concerned staff has been taken by our office in India to ensure that such future lapses by the staff will not happen. We sincerely regret that we are unable to consider your compensation request for the problems encountered at London Airport on March, 2000."

This led the complainant to file a complaint before the District Forum, Ludhiana on 23.1.2002. After appreciating the evidence on record as also the arguments, the complaint was allowed as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal by Air India.

Before we deal with the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, it may be observed here that Janta Travel Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana (O.P. No. 2 before the District Forum) was represented and its Manager had appeared before the District Forum. opposite Party No. 2 has also filed separate reply to the complaint. In the last paragraph of the judgment of the District Forum it has been observed, "As such in this case the liability for the loss suffered is of both the parties". According to us, when ultimately the District Forum ordered that "Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation" we would take it that this liability was fastened jointly and severally on both the opposite parties before the District Forum. Janta Travel Pvt. Ltd. did not choose to file any appeal against the order of the District Forum and only Air India filed the appeal. Janta Travel Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 2 in the appeal (Opposite party No. 2 in the complaint before the District Forum) was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 8.10.2003.

COUNSEL for the appellant Air India raised two contentions (i) that the complainant was not allowed to board the Air Canada flight from London to Toronto by the Air Canada officials on the ground that as per the computer printout the complainant did not hold a confirmed ticket. Therefore, it is the Air Canada, if at all, which was deficient in rendering service and not Air India as Air India flight was from Delhi-Bombay-London and the complainant did travel by Air India according to the ticket issued to him. Air India is not responsible for deficiency in service by Air Canada; and (ii) If at all the agent of Air India, i.e., Janta Travel, had issued a confirmed ticket for the Air Canada flight 863 on 18.3.2000 from London to Toronto, that was beyond the authority given by Air India because travel agent is only supposed to issue confirmed ticket on the basis of the printout on the computer and if on the Computer "OK" status, i.e., confirmed status, is not shown, the travel agent is not supposed to issue a confirmed ticket and, under these circumstances, the travel agent is to be held liable. Therefore, reliance was placed on a judgment of the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 394 of 1995, The Chief Commercial Officer, Indian Airlines & Anr., v. P. Lalchand & Anr., II (1996) CPJ 61 (NC), decided on April 23, 1996. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the Air India had issued a combined ticket from Delhi-Bombay, Bombay-London, London-Toronto on their own ticket-folder of Air India. The last leg of journey from London to Toronto was to be on Air Canada Flight 863. Air India had code arrangement with Air Canada and that is why Air India had issued ticket of Air Canada to the complainant. It was further argued that vide letter dated June 16, 2000, Annexure C-6 with the complaint (letter has been reproduced above) Air India had admitted the mistake having been committed by their General Sales Agency staff both at Chandigarh and Ludhiana and having admitted the mistake of their Travel Agent, they cannot escape the liability. It was still further argued that the principal would be liable for the negligence or mistake of his agent and since in this case the mistake had been admitted, the Air India would be liable for the mistake of Janta Travel.

THERE is no dispute between the parties that on the computer, of which printout had been annexed with the reply of Air India to the complaint, status of complainant for his travel from London to Toronto on 18.3.2000 by Air Canada Flight 863 was waitlisted No. 1. In other words, the Travel Agent had wrongly shown status of the complainant on the ticket as ''OK'' (i.e. confirmed) on Air Canada Flight 863 from London to Toronto on 18.3.2000. In the reply filed by Air India to the complaint it was also mentioned that the travel agent had booked the ticket in ''B'' class as against prescribed ''Q'' class. We do not agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant-Air India that the grievance of the complainant could only be against the Air Canada, which denied travel to the complainant from London to Toronto on 18.3.2000. The ticket having been issued by Air India, though of Air Canada, the grievance can be made against Air India. Air India had code arrangement with Air Canada. Air India had also booked the luggage of the complainant through and through from Delhi to Toronto despite on the computer the complainant was not having confirmed ticket from London to Toronto. However, the question would still remain whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, Air India would be liable for the mistake or negligence of its travel agent O.P. No. 2, i.e., Janta Travel. Surely, Air India had not authorized its agent to issue a confirmed ticket despite the status being shown otherwise on the computer. If such a ticket is issued, the gent is certainly acting beyond the authority given by the principal. Why did Janta Travel issue a confirmed ticket of Air Canada flight from London to Toronto despite the computer showing otherwise. In the judgment of the National Commission in Chief Commercial Officer, Indian Airlines v. P. Lalchand, cited by the learned Counsel for Air India, it was held by the National Commission that if the act of a travel agent was beyond the scope of its limited authority, then for any consequential loss to the third party arising therefrom the liability will only be that of the travel agent and not of the Airlines. In the said authority of the National Commission, earlier judgment of the National Commission in Indian Airlines v. Patel Ramubhai Shankar Lal & Anr., II (1993) CPJ 205 (NC), was noticed. In the said case of Patel Ramubhai Shankar Lal it has been observed as under: "The authority conferred on the ticketing agent by Indian Airlines was only to sell and issue tickets in accordance with the flight operation schedules 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." After noticing the aforesaid observation, the National Commission held in the Chief Commercial Officer, Indian Airlines v. P. Lalchand case (supra) as under: "The complainant who had hired the service of the Travel Agent had legitimate claim against the Travel Agent for the deficiency in service and the complaint has also been allowed against the third opposite party who has neither filed any appeal nor challenged the impugned orders. As the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum holding the Indian Airlines guilty of deficiency in service are patently illegal and against the view taken by this Commission, they are set aside insofar as the revision petitioner herein is concerned. The complaint against the petitioner herein is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs throughout."

In the present case, the mistake/negligence of the travel agent, Janta Travel, is writ large. They had acted beyond the authority given by Air India. They were supposed to issue tickets as per the Rules and Regulations, i.e., whatever status is on the computer, they were supposed to mention that only on the ticket. The Air India cannot he held liable for such acts of the travel agent, which are beyond the authority given by the Air India. Consequently, we hold that the travel agent, on the facts and circumstances of this case, would be liable.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal (No. 1036 of 2003) of Air India to the extent that where the District FORum has held both Air India and Janta Travel Pvt. Ltd. liable for payment of compensation as awarded by it only Janta Travel Pvt. Ltd. would be liable. In other words, the concluding portion of the District FORum''s order would now read as under: "Accordingly, the opposite party No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as costs to the complainant." Compliance of the order be done within one and a half months of the receipt of copy of this order. We make no order as to costs.

NOW, coming to the appeal (No. 1033 of 2003) filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation, we may notice that the complainant was put on the next possible flight by Air Canada. No doubt, he had to wait at the London (Heathrow) Air Port but nothing has come on record that the Air Canada/Air India people did not assist or make awaiting arrangements at the Air Port for the complainant. Since he was put in the very next flight to Toronto, for the harassment and suffering at the Air Port, we are of the view that he has been adequately compensated by giving him the compensation as ordered by the District Forum and the same does not call for any enhancement. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal (No. 1033 of 2003) filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No costs.

The orders were reserved on 9.11.2005. Be communicated to the parties. Ordered accordingly.