Emirates Kanchanjunga Building vs Belair Travels And Cargo Pvt. Ltd.

PRESENT revision petition has been filed against the order dated 12th March, 2007 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, State Commission) vide which appeal of respondent No.1 was partly allowed.

THE brief facts of this case are that petitioner booked a ticket from respondent No.2- M/s Belair Travels & Cargo Pvt. Ltd. for his flight for Delhi-Dubai-Larnaca on EK Flight for 23.6.1997 with O.K. status against consideration. When petitioner reached the Airport to board the flight, he was refused on the ground that there was no booking and with much persuation and pleadings, was provided a seat upto Dubai with assurance that the connecting flight will be available at Dubai for Larnaca on 23.6.1997. After reaching Dubai Airport, petitioner was not provided a seat in the connecting flight for Larnaca and when he insisted that he had an urgent meeting at Larnaca with regard to his business otherwise he will suffer immensely, he was threatened that he will be sent back to India at his own expense from Dubai. Petitioner having no alternative came out from Airport as he was having visa for Dubai. Petitioner, at his own expense, purchased a new ticket of Kuwait Airways for Larnaca for 24.6.1997 but by the time he reached there, the meeting was already over. Accordingly, petitioner filed a complaint before District Forum. While justifying the cancellation of the ticker, respondent No.1 took the plea that the ticket was issued by respondent No.2 for getting it confirmed but respondent No.2 had got two booking for the petitioner. Details were sought from respondent No.2 with regard to the booking made by him on 4.6.1997 vide bill No.7493 dated 16.6.1997 but no reply was received till 21.6.1997 by 12 hours. So booking was cancelled and as per rules, a person cannot have two bookings. The second booking was made on 20.6.1997 by respondent No.2 for the petitioner and on checking their reservation channel it was thus cancelled. Thus, petitioner was not having any booking. Further, petitioner was accommodated by staff of respondent No.2 of the Airport upto Dubai as he was having Dubai visa and therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that State Commission did not consider the fact that petitioner had to pay Rs.21,400/- again for the fresh ticket purchased from Kuwait Airlines for which value of the ticket was already paid to the respondents for the sector Dubai to Larnaca and thus petitioner incurred additional cost of Rs.5,000/- on stay in Dubai and Rs.3,000/- on account of using the visa at Dubai and yet Rs.3,000/- was not awarded by the State Commission nor any reason for denial of the same has been discussed in the order.

OTHER contention is that the petitioner had asked only Rs.5,000/- in its complaint before the District Forum, being the actual expenses incurred for stay in Dubai, else it was the duty for the respondents to give accommodation to the petitioner for their failure to provide the connecting flight to Larnaca. On the other hand, it is argued by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that petitioner has not furnished the details as to when the first booking was cancelled. Further, no evidence was placed before the District Forum with regard to the expenses of Rs.5,000/- incurred regarding stay at Dubai since no documents in this regard was filed before the District Forum.

ON the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that it is only a proforma respondent. Present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short Act). It is well settled that the powers of this Commission as a Revisional Court are very limited and have to be exercised only, if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Recently, Honble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ; Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.

IN the light of above decision of the Apex court, it is to be seen as to whether present revision petition is maintainable or not.

DISTRICT Forum vide its order dated 24.7.2002 directed respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.21,400/- the cost of ticket and expenses incurred on stay at Dubai Rs.5,000/- and expenses incurred on visa amounting to Rs.3,000/- and a sum of Rs.25,000/- for mental pain and agony, damage and costs. This amount was directed to be paid with interest @ 9% from 24.6.1997 till its realization within a period of 30 days. State Commission vide its impugned order partly accepted the appeal holding that respondent No. 1 was only liable to compensate as to the cost of the ticket purchased by the petitioner as well as expenses incurred for the stay and reasonable compensation for the mental agony. Accordingly, it ordered that; In view of the nature of deficiency, which was apparent on the part of the appellant, we partly allow the appeal by maintaining order of refund of Rs.21,400/- and Rs.5,000/- towards expenses for stay at Dubai and award Rs.10,000/- only as compensation for mental agony and pain and set aside the rest of the order.

The short question for consideration is as to whether State Commission was right in reducing the amount of compensation for mental agony and pain from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.10,000/- only.

THIS is a finding of fact and no legal point is involved with regard to the reduction of the compensation to be awarded towards pains, agony and suffering. In the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Act, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the State Commission as regards quantum of compensation awarded to the petitioner. Moreover, as per present revision petition, petitioner has already received a cheque of Rs.36,400/- in terms of the impugned order in March, 2007.

UNDER these circumstances, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which calls for interference. The revision petition is, thus, not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost.