CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER, INDIAN AIRLINES vs P.LALCHAND

THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 17.2.95 of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras upholding the order of the District Forum dated 28.9.94 by which it directed the petitioner herein and opposite party No. 3 (Travel Agent) to pay to the complainant the fare of Rs. 2,489/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 17.5.91 and costs of Rs. 250/-.

THE facts are not in dispute and may be noticed. The complainant had purchased an Indian Airlines ticket on 9.5.91 for Sector Ahmedabad-Bombay-Madras for Rs. 2,489/-from opposite party No. 3 for travel on 17.5.91. The departure of the flight was noted as 2045 hours. However, there was a change on 8.5.91 in the flight schedule defective from 15.5.91 and the said flight was advanced to 1925 hours. The opposite parties did not communicate the change of flight schedule to the complainant. The complainant reached the Airport at Ahmedabad on 17.5.91 at 1945 hours when he was informed that the plane had left for Bombay at 1920 hours according to revised schedule. Alleging deficiency in service of the opposite parties, in their failure to note down the correct time of departure of the flight on 9.5.91 when the schedule was revised on 8.5.91 and further failure to communicate a change in the flight schedule to the complainant, if it was wrongly entered, the complaint was filed and allowed by the District Forum, as already noticed. When the matter came up before the State Commission the decision of this Commission in Indian Airlines v. Patel Ranubhai Shankar Lal and Anr., II (1993) CPJ 205, was brought to the notice of the State Commission wherein it was held that the 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, tike liability will only be that of the Travel Agent and not of the Indian Airlines. The State Commission observed that it related to a case where the Travel Agent wrongly entered timings whereas in this case there was a change in timings and therefore, there was liability of the petitioner herein. The State Commission affirmed the decision of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner herein.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The complainant had purchased an Indian Airlines Ticket on 9.5.91 for Sector Ahmedabad-Bomaby-Madras for Rs. 2,489/-from the Travel Agent for travel on 17.5.91. At that time the departure of the flight from Ahmedabad was noted as 2045 hours despite the fact that on 8.5.91 a change in the flight schedule effective from 15.5.1991 had been announced by the Indian Airlines. The departure time for the flight IC-604 was revised from 2045 hours to 1925 hours and this change in the schedule was communicated to all the Agents of the Indian Airlines and other Airlines by means of circular dated 8.5.91 and also by way of publications in newspapers. As copy of the Circular dated 8.5.91 was despatched to the Travel Agent opposite party No. 3 on 9.5.91 and this was clearly established on the record by tendering the documentary evidence. It is clearly established that it was the negligence of the Travel Agent in noting the schedule of flights as 2045 hours at the time of issue of ticket on 9.5.91, despite the fact of change in the schedule effective from 15.5.91 had been notified. In case the complainant had purchased the ticket from the third opposite party before the receipt of the changed schedule, it was the duty and responsibility of the Agent to inform the complainant about any change in the time schedule. There was no negligence established on the part of the Indian Airlines. In the aforesaid case this Commission held: " 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".

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 order. 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 in so far as the revision petitioner herein is concerned. The complaint against the petitioner herein is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs throughout.