A.Panchapakesan vs Pioneer Aero Travels (Madras) Pvt. Ltd

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 10.09.2012, passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 52/2009, ''''Pioneer Aero Travels (Madras) Private Limited versus A. Panchapakesan & Ors. '''' vide which appeal against the order dated 15.12.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) in CC No. 300/2004 was accepted, the said order was set aside and the consumer complaint in question was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioners/complainants filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum against the respondent/OP, the travel agency, alleging that the OP had indulged in deficiency in service towards them, resulting in lot of mental harassment and agony to them, during their tour from Delhi to Hong Kong and back. The petitioners/complainants approached the OP Travel agency for booking their air -tickets and hotel accommodation for travel to Hong Kong. Their flight tickets were booked by Airlankan Airways to travel on 20.01.2004 and their hotel stay was arranged at Park Hotel, Hong Kong for 3 nights, i.e., 21.01.2004 to 24.01.2004. The complainants made a payment of Rs.88,000/ - to the travel agency for air -tickets, hotel accommodation and other charges. It has been alleged that the OP failed to deliver the air -tickets to the complainants in time and these tickets were delivered on the date of the travel itself, i.e., 20.01.2004 at 1:00 PM, although the flight was scheduled to leave at 4:00PM that very day. The complainant hurriedly went to the airport to catch the flight, but they were not allowed to board the flight, saying that the passports for complainants no. 2 and 3 did not bear the stamp, ''''Emigration Clearance Not Required '''' (ECNR). The complainants tried to obtain temporary ECNR clearance and spent a sum of Rs.260/ - for the same and Rs.600/ - as conveyance charges, but still they were not able to get the scheduled flight on that day. The OP then rescheduled their programme and booked their tickets in Cathay Pacific Airlines for 27.01.2004, and also arranged hotel accommodation at Bishop Lei International Hotel at Hong Kong for three nights with effect from 28.01.2004. It has been alleged that the travel agency asked for a further sum of Rs.1464/ - from them in addition to Rs.88,000/ - already paid. There was alleged altercation between the parties, resulting in lodging a complaint with the Police on 27.01.2004 by the complainants. The complainants made payment of Rs.1464/ - by cheque, but the same could not be en -cashed as instructions for ''stop payment '' were given by the complainants to the Bank. Further, it is stated that in Hong Kong they had to pay additional 1521 Hong Kong Dollars (HKD) for hotel accommodation. The complainants demanded that a sum of Rs.8899/ - paid in excess towards hotel accommodation, a sum of Rs.860/ - for obtaining ECNR, Rs.200 for postal expenses and Rs.2,00,000/ - as compensation for mental harassment should be paid to them. The District Forum vide their order dated 15.12.2009 allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.8899/ - paid excess for hotel accommodation, Rs.860/ - for ECNR, Rs.1000/ - as cost of litigation and Rs.50,000/ - as compensation for mental harassment. An appeal was filed against this order before the State Commission and vide impugned order, the said appeal was allowed, the order of the District Forum was set aside and the consumer complaint was dismissed. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the facts given in the complaint and stated that it was the duty of the respondent -OP to properly advise the complainants about the Emigration process. Since they had taken a package tour, the OP was supposed to take care of all the travel needs, including the requirement of ECNR stamp. They also stated that once they had made payment for air -fare, hotel accommodation to the OP, there should not have been any need to pay extra amount to the hotel in Hong Kong. The OPs had paid a paltry amount of Rs.3336/ - to them as compensation for this whole episode.

REGARDING the delay of 70 days in filing the petition, the learned counsel stated that as stated in the application for condonation of delay, delay had occurred because they had to hire a lawyer at Delhi.

IN reply, the learned counsel for the respondent/OP stated that it was not the job of the travel agency to obtain ECNR clearance for the travellers. The only duty to be performed by the OP was to make arrangements for air -travel and hotel accommodation. The travel agency had asked the complainants to show them the travel documents including passport, but they did not do so, saying that they had valid visa. The learned counsel stated that the entire set of events occurred because of the failure of the complainants to make sure that ECNR stamp was affixed on their passport. The OPs were not at fault in any manner and had not shown any deficiency in service. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The facts of the case make it very clear that ECNR stamp had not been fixed on the passport of two of the complainants, when they undertook to travel from Delhi to Hong Kong on 20.01.2004. The fact that the air -tickets were delivered to them at 1:00 PM on 20.01.2004, only a few hours before the scheduled departure of flight, does not have any relevance with the ECNR stamp. It is clear that obtaining a passport and getting the ECNR stamp etc. was the job of the complainants only, and the travel plans got disrupted due to their own fault. The facts of the case also make it very clear that when the travel plan got disturbed, the respondent / OP made offer to make the booking again and they arranged for the air -tickets and accommodation in a new hotel, for which they did not charge anything extra from the complainants. It is also made out that after the travel, the OPs made a payment of Rs.3336/ - to the complainants. On the other hand, the complainants made a payment of Rs.1464/ - to the OPs by cheque but simultaneously, they gave instructions to the Bank to stop the payment. It is also clear that at the time of altercation between the parties, the complainant sought the intervention of the local Police and in fact the Police Officer did come to the travel agency at the call of the complainants.

IT is clear from the facts stated above that the respondents have not indulged in any deficiency in service, rather they have helped the complainants in making alternative bookings for air -tickets and hotel accommodation at no extra charge. It is not understood how extra payment of Rs.8899/ - had to be made to the Hotel, but it is very clear that hotel accommodation had to be arranged afresh after the first booking got cancelled. The OPs have not asked the complainants to pay any cancellation charges also.

IN the light of the above discussion, it is made out that the order passed by the State Commission, dismissing the complaint and holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/OPs seems to be based on sound reasoning and there is no infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the same. The impugned order is, therefore, upheld and the present revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/ -