AVTAR SINGH SAHOTA vs PEARL INTERNATIONAL TOURS AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD.

THE present appeal is filed against the order dated 2.6.2003 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short, hereinafter, to be referred as District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No. 83 of 2000. THE contextual facts in brief are as under :

THE appellant''s/complainant''s son bought a ticket bearing No. 1-074-3757806894 of K.L.M. Airlines from respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1 on 24.9.1998. As per averments when he proceeded to catch the flight to London he came to know that he has been issued air ticket for two months validity while he had asked it for four months period. Further, the appellant/complainant was wrongly shown to have been issued a foreign exchange of 250 US Dollars while the same was never received by him or his son (Annexure P-9). THE appellant/complainant has also alleged that he was issued an air ticket of different category than asked for by him as the ticket was tour package which could not be confirmed in the original manner and this fact was concealed from the appellant and he had to purchase a fresh ticket for the return journey. THE appellant/complainant has further alleged that the O.Ps. refused to refund the amount of the ticket which could not be used due to deficiency in services provided by the O.P. No. 1. Due to aforesaid deficiencies the complainant has claimed Rs. 22,500/- being return ticket which could not be utilised, Rs. 16,750/- spent on second return ticket and Rs. 2,420/- spent on telephone calls to the O.Ps. and courier charges, with interest @ 18% per annum. Further compensation of Rs. 2,500/- due to harassment, Rs. 3,000/- as litigation costs and Rs. 5,000/- amount spent on taxi fare for visiting the offices of K.L.M. Airlines in U.K. has also been prayed for. In the written statement filed on behalf of O.P. No. 1, the preliminary objection that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and O.P. No. 1 as the ticket was purchased by Mr. Manohar Deepak Singh, the son of appellant/complainant, who accepted all the terms and conditions of the ticket in question. As no complaint has been made by the appellant''s son to O.P. No. 1, the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, the factum of issuance of the ticket and the amounts paid by the complainant stands admitted. However, the answering O.P. has submitted that as appellant''s/complainant''s son was informed about the validity period of ticket being two months as it was a concessional ticket. The appellant''s/complainant''s son returned the ticket for the extension of validity on 22.9.1999 with a promise to remit the balance amount of Rs. 12,743/- after the extension, however, this balance amount of Rs. 12,743/- is still due to him and this complaint has been filed with a motive to avoid his liability of payment of this amount. The O.P. No. 1 has also submitted that a receipt for foreign exchange for Rs. 10,875/- dated 27.4.1999 (Annexure P-9) has been issued by O.P. No. 2, which is separate business identity and any connivance as alleged by the complainant has been denied.

In evidence the complainant has brought on record his affidavit alongwith Annexures C-1 to C-11 while the affidavit of Sh. Ravi Oberoi, Manager of O.P. was filed.

THE District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that since son of the complainant did not file his affidavit in respect of the case of the complainant a strong adverse presumption was drawn against the complainant and the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum the present appeal has been filed pleading, inter alia, that the order of the District Forum is erroneous as sufficient evidence was available on the record to decide the complaint even without the affidavit of the son of appellant/complainant. The documents annexed on record showing that the second return ticket was a tour package and not an ordinary ticket. The ticket for return journey to Delhi could not be confirmed and he had to purchase a fresh return ticket. Further, mentioning of foreign exchange in the column and putting the signatures of appellant/complainant though no foreign exchange was asked for by the complainant, the District Forum ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 as the aforesaid facts demonstrate that O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 were in connivance with each other. The appellant has submitted that O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to be punished due to the fraud played by them on the consumers like appellant but the District Forum has dismissed the complaint merely on the ground of affidavit of his son not having been filed. It is submitted that omission to file the affidavit was not intentional but due to the fact that he was not so advised by the Counsel engaged by him. The appellant/complainant has alleged that he suffered due to deficiency in service as he had to bring the ashes of his deceased brother-in-law but due to the aforesaid failure on the part of O.Ps./respondents to confirm the return ticket he had to buy a second ticket to return to Delhi. The appellant has prayed that due to aforesaid infirmities the order of the District Forum is set aside and the appeal be accepted.

ADVERTING to the merit of the appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the contention of the appellant has merit that there was enough material placed on record of the complaint and the District Forum was not justified in dismissing his complaint on the plea of non-filing of the affidavit of complainant''s son. This complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act which has been enacted for the better protection of the consumers, the District Forum was not justified in dismissing the complaint on this technical ground. The complainant has submitted that affidavit of his son could not be filed as he was not so advised by the Counsel engaged in the case, hence the District Forum should have directed the complainant to get the affidavit of his son filed if that was so vital for the disposal of the complaint. The complaint is remanded back to the District Forum for decision on merit after affording an opportunity to the son of the complainant to file his duly sworn affidavit and the case be decided within two months. The appeal is accepted. The case is remanded to the District Forum as per directions given above. The parties are directed to appear before District Forum on 20.10.2003. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed.