Chetan Shah vs Peerless Travels P Ltd

THE complainant has filed this complaint for obtaining following reliefs : A. Compensation for taxi charges. Rs. 2,400 B. Compensation towards flight charges. Rs. 1,266/ - C. Compensation for business loss. Rs. 5,00,000/ - D. Compensation for mental and physical pain and agony. Rs. 25,000/ - E. Cost of legal notice and cost of this litigation. Rs. 10,000/ - F. Interest at the rate of 18% on the total amount mentioned above till the date of payment. G. Be pleased to pass such other and further order as may be deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

THE basis of the complaint as alleged by the complainant is issuance of one ticket for. 28.4.1995 for travel from Ahmedabad to Bhuj. The ticket number stated by the complainant is 5196204 and was in waiting list. It has been alleged that later on it was confirmed by the opponent No. 1. Accordingly, the complainant reached the airport on 28.4.1995 but to his shock he was informed that he was on waiting list and the ticket in question would not be confirmed. The complainant has alleged that all that has happened on account of negligence on the part of opponent No. 1. The complainant could not travel by the same flight as he was supposed to travel (with Shree Suresh Mehta). He, therefore, came back from the airport and contacted opponent No. 1 at its counter at Hotel Shalin where the complainant had dropped. It has been alleged that opponent No. 1 orally apologised for the mistake and negligence but thereafter he was insulted and rudely treated. The complainant had therefore, to travel by taxi during night hours and that caused him a lot of pain and tension. On 9.5.1995, the complainant gave a notice to the opponents. He has alleged that he received letter dated 15.5.1995 in which opponent No. 1 expressed regrets without courtesy. According to him the turn over of the Company wherein he was the Managing Director ran into 50 lakhs of rupees in the previous year and on account of his unforeseen absence from the place of work he lost business worth Rs. 5 lakhs as the could not deal with the Industries and Finance Minister Shree Suresh Mehta. The complainant gave reply to letter dated 15.5.1995 and has alleged that he has suffered irreparable loss since he should be treated as consumer within he meaning of that word as contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act for short). He has prayed for aforesaid reliefs in this complaint filed on 25.9.1995. The opponents have resisted the claim while denying the allegations contained in the complaint. They have asserted that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious, that the complainant wants to take unfair advantage of the Act, that exemplary cost should be awarded from the complainant, that the airticket in question was issued as wait -listed and wait list number 04 was stated in the ticket itself, that W/L 04 has been misread as OK, that mark ''O.K.'' is being affixed on the mark W/L with a seal of authorised agent when a ticket is confirmed, that the opponent No. 1 requested the complainant to obtain refund of amount of ticket by production of cancelled ticket and the opponent was ready and willing to pay refund of the ticket at all points of time, that the complainant has unnecessarily tried to throw mud on the reputation of the Honourable Minister of State of Gujarat by mentioning name of the said Minister in the complaint, that the complainant is not entitled to any amount of the damages and that the complaint should be dismissed with cost as aforesaid. The complainant has filed affidavit -in -rejoinder at Exh. 8 wherein he has denied the assertions made in the affidavit in reply.

FOLLOWING questions arise for our consideration and determination from the aforesaid pleadings : (1) Is it proved that the complainant was issued travel ticket with ''OK'' status ? (2) In the alternative is it proved that the complainant was assured ''OK'' status for the ticket in question at any later point of time ? (3) Is it proved that the complainant sustained loss of damage as alleged ? (4) What order ?

OUR answers to the aforesaid questions are as under : (1) In the negative. (2) In the negative. (3) No. (4) As per final order. Reasons :

Before we advert to the written submissions made on behalf of the complainant as well as the opponents, it would be necessary to note that the xerox copy of the air ticket in question clearly indicates the letters ''W/L'' in column of (sic.) and below that the numerals ''04'' appear, but the (sic.) clearly appears to have been overwritten so as to (sic.) letters ''OK''. The complainant appears to have not explained this correction/interpolation. The original ticket is not produced by the complainant on the record. At this very stage we would like to observe from the complaint that the words ''with Shri Suresh Mehta'' are written in ink and not initialled by the complainant on page C of the complaint. However, if that submission of fact is to be taken into consideration it would mean that the complainant was supposed to travel with Shri Suresh Mehta whereas at a later point in the complaint, the complainant has alleged that due to complainants unforeseen absence from his place of work (Bhuj) he lost business worth Rs. 5 lakhs as he could not deal w : th Industries and Finance Minister Shri Suresh Mehta. It was never the case of the complainant that he was to deal with and/or communicate with the Honourable Industries and Finance Minister in the flight itself. As a matter of fact, it is his case that he had to travel by taxi overnight with the result that if he was to see Honourable Industries and Finance Minister at the place of work or at any place in Bhuj, he could have very much seen and communicated with the Minister. Therefore, on the face of the complaint there clearly appear to be contradictory statements of facts which have bearing on the truthfulness and genuineness of the complaint itself. We also make note of the fact that Annexure -C being the legal notice dated 15.5.1995 does not speak about any pecuniary loss. We finally observe from the title of the complaint that the complainant has filed this complaint in his individual capacity. The complaint has not been filed by the Company in the name and style of Ashapura Mine Cheme Ltd., Bombay, although the complainant has stated his designation in the said Company. It would appear from the complaint itself that it was the companys business for which the complainant alleged to have had travel ticket as aforesaid. The complainant has not alleged any personal loss as can be seen from the averments in the complaint. In view of what is stated above, the complaint deserves to be struck off at the first brush. However, since the parties have filed their pleadings coupled with affidavits as also written statements, we propose to deal with the same in this order.

DEALING with the first question, we reiterate from the xerox copy of the ticket in question placed at Annexure -A that the ticket was with status ''W/L 04'' and was not confirmed ticket. Therefore, all allegations made by the complainant on the assumption that the ticket was confirmed prima facie fail. Besides, the opponents have specifically alleged on oath that when OK status is issued after wait -listed ticket is delivered to the passenger, a sticker is affixed on the letters W/L and that sticker contains the letters ''OK. Therefore, on the face of the material which is placed on record, we have no alternative except to conclude that the complainant did not have the benefit of confirmed ticket for 28.4.1995 as alleged by him. We answer the question in negative accordingly.

SECOND question arises from the alternative plea that at later point of time the complainant was assured that he would be conferred with OK status in respect of the ticket in question. As a matter of fact, no particulars with regard to the time when such assurance was given and with regard to the name of the person who gave such an assurance. That apart, the complainant appears to be experienced businessman and also appears to be frequently travelling by air. He, therefore, must be quite aware of the fact that such an oral assurance even if given will not be of any assistance to a passenger and if the passenger goes to the airport with a wait -listed ticket, he has to take a chance. It appears that the complainant had taken such a chance but since his waitlist number was not confirmed, he had to return to the hotel. Be that it may, on the consideration of the rival statements of facts as appearing in respective affidavits, we are convinced that the complainant has not come forward with correct facts. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the opponents as contained in respective affidavits. We accordingly answer question No. 2 in the negative. Third question relates to the loss alleged to have been sustained by the complainant. No particulars in the complaint are given. But we gather them from the relief clause. It is apparent that the complainant himself has not suffered any business loss in the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. Particulars of such business loss are not set out in the complaint. The company in which the complainant appears to be a Managing Director/ It. Managing Director has not filed any complaint. No statement of the accounts of the company is also placed on record. Therefore, we are clear in our mind that the claim of compensation in the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs appears to have been set up in the complaint for bringing the complaint before this Commission and not before the Forum. Besides, no evidence of such loss is placed on record. Insofar as flight charges are concerned, the opponent No. 1 was ready and willing to return the amount of ticket and is still ready and willing to repay the amount of flight charges on production of the original ticket. Had the complainant produced the original ticket in the complaint, we would have thought of issuing appropriate direction on admission of the opponent No. 1. Therefore, there is clearly no deficiency in service in respect thereof on the part of the opponents. The complainant, therefore, will not be entitled to the flight charges in the absence of original ticket. Insofar as compensation for taxi charges is concerned this is clearly dependent upon the findings of the first two issues. We find that the complainant will not be entitled to compensation for taxi charges on account of such findings against the complainant. Same will be our conclusion with regard to compensation for mental and physical pain and agony as well as cost of litigation and legal notice while observing that on both the heads the complainant has put forward exorbitant claim bearing in mind the facts of the case. The decisions referred to by the complainant will hardly have any application to the facts of this case. We, therefore, answer this question in the negative.

THE opponents have claimed cost of the complaint as also exemplary cost. In view of what is stated in this order, we are of the opinion that the complainant has clearly made an attempt to abuse the process of law as contained in the Act. We feel that some cost should be ordered against the complainant in order to set an example for deterrance with regard to filing of false complaint or complaint with apparently exaggerated claims.

WE , therefore, pass following order. This complaint is dismissed. The complainant shall pay to each of the opponents cost in the sum of Rs. 1,500/ - (in all Rs. 3,000/ -) within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Complaint dismissed with costs.