COZY TRAVELS vs S.S.SURI

BRIEF facts stated by the respondents-complainants are that Gurtej Singh, complainant No. 2, who is the son of complainant No. 1 S.S. Puri had to go to Moscow to appear in the examination of Ist Medical Institute Saint Peterburg and had to appear in the test fixed for 28.8.1997. Complainant No. 1 had made advance booking of the seat and purchased ticket from Delhi to Moscow, from respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 issued a ticket from Jalandhar for Delhi to Moscow bearing No. Cozy Travels 924-6212-2 dated 2.8.1997 on payment and confirmed the seat by endorsing ticket by computer printing. Availability of the seat was also got confirmed from opposite party No. 3. The details of telephone calls made to respondent No. 3 by complainant No. 1 has been annexed as Annexure ''B'' with the complaint. It is then averred in the complaint that the respondent No. 2 reconfirmed the seat on 23.8.1997 on telephone. After confirmation of the seat by respondent No. 2, both the complainants alongwith wife of complainant No. 1, who happens to be the mother of complainant No. 2 reached Delhi at 7 p.m. After taking some rest, they reached Indira Gandhi Airport, Delhi on 26.8.1997 at 3 a.m. The flight was to take off at 7.35 a.m. The complainant No. 2 went inside the Airport. His passport, other papers and luggage were got checked by the Airport Authority. After sometime he was told by the Airport Authority that the seat allotted to him has been cancelled on 25.8.1997 and he could not travel to Moscow in flight SU-536. The complainant then went to the office of the respondent No. 1 at 11 a.m. on 26.8.1997 and had to hire taxi for the visits. The complainants were told to contact respondent No. 3, who is their agent. The complainant then visited respondent No. 3 as directed by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 told them that due to over-booking, the seat could not be provided to complainant No. 2 on flight No. SU-536 and advised them to contact respondent No. 3 on 27.8.1997 at 11 a.m. and was told that respondent No. 3 would arrange a seat for the complainant No. 2. Respondent No. 3 was contacted on 27.8.1997 at 11 a.m., who advised them to contact him again at 5 p.m. as he was not able to arrange the seat by then. Respondent No. 3 was again contacted at 8 p.m. at the entry gate of the Indira Gandhi International Airport. But respondent No. 3 was not available at the entry gate, which caused lot of harassment and mental tension to the complainants and their family members. The complainant No. 2 then went inside the Airport with great efforts and pleadings with the Airport Authority could manage a seat on the flight, which was scheduled to take off at 11 a.m. It is then alleged in the complaint that the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for hiring taxies from the Airport to their staying place and to the office of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and back to the Airport. The complainants alongwith their family members had to stay at Delhi on 26.8.1997 and 27.8.1997 and had to pay Rs. 3,000/- as stay charges. This amount had to be incurred due to deficiency in service by respondent No. 2. It is then stated in the complaint that due to delay, the complainant No. 2 could not reach Moscow well in time and could not appear in the examination, which was scheduled for 28.8.1997. Certificate issued by Government Medical Union Russia has been attached with the complaint. It is further alleged in the complaint that complainant No. 2 had to wait for next test, which was held on 18.9.1997, which caused mental harassment and tension to him. It is then stated in the complaint that due to deficiency in service by respondents, the complainants suffered mental/physical harassment and had to spend Rs. 5,000/- more than the actual expenses for staying at Delhi for three days and complainant No. 2 had to wait for 20 days for examination which was got rescheduled for 18.9.1997 with great efforts. A prayer was made in the complaint before the District Forum that the complainants be awarded a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- from respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as compensation alongwith costs of the complaint.

ON notice being served on the opposite parties, respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex parte, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had filed the reply and had taken preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint as the complainants were not covered within the definition of a consumer and also complicated questions of law and facts were involved and thus District Forum could not go into their dispute. ON merits, it was admitted that complainant No. 2 approached the opposite parties for purchase of ticket from Delhi to Moscow and opposite party No. 2 issued the ticket of opposite party No. 1, but it had been denied that the seats were confirmed. It was stated in the reply that the ticket was issued subject to the specific condition and reconfirmation of seat three days before the flight. Thus, the complainant was expected to reconfirm the seat on 23.8.1997 and confirmation on the ticket was of no validity and specific condition for reconfirmation was scribed on the ticket. It is then stated in the reply that the complainant was sought to reconfirm the seat on 22.8.1997 on telephone and he was again asked to reconfirm the ticket on 23.8.1997 at 12 p.m. He was again told that the seat was not reconfirmed. It is then stated in the reply that the validity of the seat was never confirmed and if the complainants had suffered then they had suffered due to their own lapse and not due to deficiency in service on their part. It has further been denied that the complainant had suffered any damages or he had been contacting opposite party Nos. 2 and 3; rather the representative of opposite party No. 3 made contacts at Indira Gandhi International Airport on 26.8.1997 and he tried his level best for the seat in next flight which was scheduled to take off at 11 p.m. and the complainants had agreed to change the flight. It is denied that complainant was to appear in the examination or he had to over-stay at Moscow and had made any expenses or had suffered any damages. Ultimately a prayer was made to dismiss the complaint. Rejoinder was filed by the complainants. In the rejoinder, the allegations made in the complaint have been reiterated and the allegations made contrary to the allegations made in the complaint have been contradicted. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and after having gone through the record, District Forum allowed the complaint with costs and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages and compensation. Costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainants were also ordered to be paid by the opposite parties.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their help.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant had submitted before us that the ticket issued for travel to complainant No. 2, Gurtej Singh Puri for his travel on 26.8.1997 was not confirmed ticket as it has been specifically written on the ticket itself as under : "Please Reconfirm UR Seats 3 Days Before Flight."

According to the learned Counsel if the complainant had missed flight on 26.8.1997 and had to spend some more time in Moscow or had spent money on travel in taxies or for staying at Delhi, it was not due to their fault and thus neither there was any deficiency in service on their part nor they had committed any unfair trade practice. Learned Counsel had further submitted that the complainants-respondents had not produced any cogent evidence for appearance of respondent/complainant No. 2 in the examination in Moscow as alleged.

ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents-complainants has stated that the air ticket in question was confirmed one for travel on 26.8.1997 and if complainant No. 2 could not travel by that flight, it was due to the deficient service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently the complainants had to spend a lot of money while staying in Delhi and complainant No. 2 had to spend extra money. It is also urged that the complainant suffered physical harassment and mental agony while staying in Moscow. It is further argued that by issuing a confirmed ticket to the complainants and later on telling them that the ticket had been cancelled and no seat was available on the plane on 26.8.1997 was also an unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. We have seen the air-ticket of Aeroflot issued by Cozy Travels from Delhi to Moscow mentioning Flight No. SU-536-Y dated 26.8.1997. It has been clearly written on the ticket under the column ''Status'' as ''OK''. OK obviously means that the ticket is confirmed and no confirmation was needed later on. Even the endorsement of the opposite party on the ticket "Please reconfirm UR seat 3 days before flight" goes to show that the ticket was confirmed. If the ticket was not confirmed then OK should not have been written on the ticket. From this factual position, we find that the flight number, time and date of the ticket for air-travel from Delhi to Moscow by Aeroflot was confirmed by the opposite parties. Thus, the opposite parties were deficient in not providing promised service to the complainant No. 2 . He could not travel in Flight No. SU-536-Y on 26.8.1997 due to their fault. It looks that opposite party No. 2 had given the OK (confirmed) ticket to complainants/respondents, but later on that ticket was given to someone else; may be due to some extraneous consideration. This act of opposite parties particularly of opposite party No. 2 falls under the definition of unfair trade practice and we hold that the action of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, at the first instance issuing the OK ticket to the complainants for travel from Delhi to Moscow and then denying the same facility to them amounts to unfair trade practice.

NOW we have to see as to how much compensation can be awarded to the complainant/respondent No. 2.

COMPLAINANT No. 2 has stated in his complaint that he had to over-stay in Moscow for about 20 days for taking examination on 18.9.1997, which he had missed on 28.8.1997. According to him if he had not missed the flight on 26.8.1997, he would have sat in the examination to be held on 28.8.1997, but due to cancellation of his OK ticket for that date, he had to take the next day''s flight. He has also produced a certificate Ex. C5 to substantiate his plea. The certificate Ex. C5 reads as under : "SAINT-PETERSBURG PVLOV GOVERN-MENT MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, LEO TOLSTOY 6/8, SAINT PETERSBURG RUSSIA. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to inform that Gurtej Singh Puri student of sixth academic year (passport No. A-163779) did not appear in the exam of General therapy conducted on 28 Aug. 1997. He appeared in the same exam on 18th Sep. 1997. Dean of sixth year and Foreign affairs. Dmithry Yurivich Alexev"

No other evidence except his affidavit has been produced by the complainant in order to show that he had to appear in the Ist Medical Institute Saint Petersburg. Certificate Ex. C-5 does not mention anywhere that any examination of Ist Medical Institute Saint Petersburg had to be held on 28.8.1997. It only shows that Gurtej Singh Puri did not appear in the examination of General therapy conducted on 28.8.1997 and he reappeared in the same examination on 18.9.1997. Even this certificate does not properly disclose as to whether the certificate was produced by a proper authority who was to conduct the examination of Ist Medical Institute Saint Petersburg.

It has also not been disputed by complainant that he took flight from Delhi on 27.8.1997 at 11 p.m. and reached Moscow on 28.8.1997 at 4.10 a.m. on schedule time and test was to be held at day time on 28.8.1997. The complainant has not given any reasons as to why he could not appear in the test, which was to be held on 28.8.1997; particularly when he had reached Moscow at 4.10 a.m. on the same day obviously before the start of the test, if any.

IT is, thus, not proved on record that complainant No. 2 could not appear in the test due to missing of his flight on 26.8.1997. The complainants have claimed Rs. 3,000/- for their stay at Delhi on 26.8.1997 to 28.8.1997 and also the taxi charges of Rs. 2,000/- for that period. This amount is not authenticated by any bill/receipt of a hotel or of the taxi. Even if the complainant No. 2 is entitled for some expenses and if some compensation is to be given for that purpose, only complainant No. 2 is entitled for the same and not his parents. The reasonable amount according to us, which will include his stay in Delhi as well as taxi charges, will amount to Rs. 1,500/- only.

AS we have held above that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in particular were deficient in providing service to the complainant No. 2 and have also committed unfair trade practice; firstly issuing the OK ticket and then depriving the complainant to travel on that ticket by telling them at the nick of time that the OK ticket stood cancelled. In our view, it will be appropriate to award Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for physical discomfort, harassment and mental agony due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. In these circumstances, order dated 27.5.1998 of the District Forum, Jalandhar is modified to the extent stated above. In view of our discussion made above, we partially accept the appeal and modify the order of the District Forum, which shall now read as under : "The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 (appellant Nos. 1 and 2) are directed to pay to respondent/complainant No. 2 Rs. 1,500/- only for stay at Delhi, which shall include taxi charges also. Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 (appellant Nos. 1 and 2) shall further pay Rs. 25,000/- to complainant/respondent No. 2 as compensation for physical discomfort, harassment and mental agony due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3/appellant Nos. 1 and 2. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."

Appeal partly allowed.