Gobinder Singh Brig vs Shergill Travels Private Limited

THIS appeal has been directed by the complainants against order dated 5.4.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby their complaint was dismissed, being meritless. However, the parties were left to bear their own costs.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that respondents are travel agents and provide service to the customers who intend to visit abroad. They arrange tickets, return tickets and confirmation thereof, etc. in relation and in connection with air travel to foreign countries for consideration. It was next averred that the appellants arranged their visit to Australia for a period of two months after due consultation with their relatives and friends staying in Australia, starting from second week of May, 2004. The purpose of visit was to explore avenue for business.

IT was further averred that they approached the respondents for purchase of air tickets and they purchased air tickets after assurance was given by the respondents that their return journey would be confirmed for 2nd July, 2004. However, when the tickets were handed over to them on 7th May, 2005, they came to know that in fact they were to return on 7th June, 2004 instead of 2nd July, 2004 as earlier promised by the respondents and for this reason their departure was delayed for about six hours as they insisted for issuance of tickets for 2.7.2004. On their persistent demand, the respondents promised and assured that the return date would be suitably amended and on this assurance, issued five sets of stickers with IATA marking, saying that these could be attached to the ticket leaves once the tickets were confirmed for 2.7.2004 as originally promised. It was further averred that their planned visit to Sydney up to July, 2004 is fully established from the visa applications which they routed through respondents and from the overseas medi -claim policies which they had got for about two months. It was next averred that on reaching Australia, they contacted the QANTAS office of airways through Brig. Gobinder Singh and came to know that there was no confirmation for their return journey on 2.7.2004, rather their return journey was confirmed for 7.6.2004. Accordingly, they took up the matter with QANTAS Airways and also tried to contact Ms. Param Shergill of M/s. Shergill Travels Pvt. Ltd. but on hearing the voice of Brig. Gobinder Singh, she always disconnected the telephone. Even fax messages were sent to the respondents on 22.5.2004 and 30.6.2004, besides e -mail messages and lastly Ms. Param Shergill on 3.6.2004 informed that all 5 passengers were confirmed for 2nd July from Hong Kong to Delhi. However, later on it was found there was original confirmation for 2nd July from Hong Kong to Delhi which was cancelled two days before their departure from Delhi i.e. on 7.5.2004 and the respondents kept them in dark and made total misrepresentation and concealment of facts and committed deficiency in service.

IT was next averred that on return to India, they served notice but the respondents did not reply. With these allegations, they prayed that Rs. 25,000 as compensation be granted to each of the appellants (complainants) for harassment, loss caused to them and at least one way air fare to travel to Australia in order to fulfil the incomplete programmes and tours.

RESPONDENTS contested the complaint and filed written reply dated 5.11.2004. They took certain preliminary objections; that the complaint was not maintainable as they have failed to give their full particulars; that Brig. Gobinder Singh has no locus standi to file complaint on behalf of others and that no cause of action has arisen to the appellants. On merits, they denied the allegations but admitted that appellants approached them for purchase of group tickets to Australia which were meant for at least 10 passengers i.e. they purchased tickets in a group as the fare in group ticket was competitive and concessional but the same could not be availed subsequently independently or by breaking the group. They denied that any assurance was given for arranging the return journey for 2.7.2004 instead of 7.6.2004. They next stated that it was the appellants who had caused six hours delay. They further stated that they had promised for the return journey tickets of 7th June and consequently had given to Brig. Gobinder Singh. They next stated that 5 sets of stickers of IATA marking were not supplied by them. They also stated that the appellant could not be allowed double benefit as they first took group tickets to Australia on concessional terms of money but subsequently they wanted to come independently by breaking the group into two, which at all, was not permissible by the airline. Moreover, split in group would have costed Rs. 4000 extra per person, which the appellants were not prepared to pay. They next stated that appellants had no right to split their group, since they were required to travel together, so, they were never promised that return journey for 2.7.2004 would be confirmed. They also denied the documents placed by the appellants on file and as such prayed that complaint be dismissed.

PARTIES adduced evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing the Counsel for the parties the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T. Chandigarh dismissed the complaint being meritless vide order dated 5.4.2005.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, complainants have filed the present appeal.

WE have heard Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the appellants, Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. D.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondents, and carefully gone through the file. It is an admitted fact that the respondents are air travel agents and proved services to the customers who intend to visit abroad. It is also an admitted fact that the appellants got their tickets booked through respondents for their journey to Australia from Delhi. The case of the appellants is that they had booked their journey from 7.5.2004 to 2.7.2004 and the respondents had assured them that necessary tickets would be supplied to them, but before their departure they were issued return journey tickets for 7th June instead of 2nd July and as such there was deficiency in service on their part. On the other hand, the case of respondents is that they had never given assurance to the appellants that their return journey would be confirmed for 2nd July, 2004 and in fact, they were given tickets for their return journey for 7.6.2004 and further they had not provided any five sets of stickers with IATA marking and as such there was no deficiency in service on their part.

ANNEXURE C -1 is return schedule given to the travel agent in the first half of April, 2004, relating to a group of 10 persons. Out of which, two persons were to return on 7th June, two another persons were to return on 9th June and appellants were to return on 2nd July, 2004. Annexure C -2 consists of two air tickets which were issued for departure for 9th May and to return on 7th June. Annexure C -3 consists photocopies of stickers issued for 5 appellants for their return tickets from Sydney, for 2nd July, 2004. Again Annexure C -4 is letter dated 7.5.2004 from QANTAS Inbound Sales regarding departure of 10 persons for 7.6.2004 from Sydney to Hong Kong. Annexure C -5 is the letter addressed by Gobinder Singh, one of the appellants to the Station Manager, QANTAS Airways dated 22.5.2004 requesting for the change of date for the return journey for 2nd July, 2004 instead of 7th June, 2004. It was also mentioned in it that they were prepared to pay usual normal additional charges for the change of date. Annexure C -6 is the letter issued by Gobinder Singh dated 22.5.2004 to Ms. Param Shergill bringing to her notice that she had promised to get the air tickets changed from 7th June to 2nd July but she has not done anything. Again Annexure C -7 is photocopy of the fax message to Ms. Param Shergill of M/s. Shergill Travels regarding voicemail message given by her to Dr. Waryam Singh. In this fax message Gobinder Singh had clearly stated that she had been giving them false assurance that their tickets would be amended to 2nd July and he had spoken from Sydney four times but nothing had been done. He further stated that at her suggestion they sent fax message/e -mail to the Air line. It is further stated that Parminder told Bandana only yesterday that 2nd July return tickets were confirmed and gave a PNR number on which he contacted Qantas office and came to know that the tickets for return journey for 2nd July had been cancelled as early as 7.5.2004, two days before they left India and further that Ms. Param Shergill had been harassing them by giving false assurance which had caused them immense harm and financial loss as their entire programme to Australia had to be curtailed. Annexure C -8 is the notice issued to Ms. Param Shergill by Brig. Gobinder Singh detailing the facts. Annexure C8 -1 is the postal receipt. Annexure C -9 is e -mail message given by Param Shergill on 3.6.2004 at 7.19 p.m. She had confirmed that 5 passengers had been confirmed for 2nd July from Hong Kong to Delhi and tomorrow she would definitely e -mail itinerery alongwith PNR number. Later on, when they talked with Qantas office, they came to know that the tickets reserved for 2.7.2004 for them had been cancelled on 7.5.2004. Annexure C -10 is overseas medi -claim policy issued in favour of Mr. Gobinder Singh for the period commencing from 7.5.2004. Letter annexure C -11 dated 14.6.2004 suggests that Gobinder Singh, Mrs. Devi Gobinder Singh and Mrs. Tejinder Gurbax Singh were given medi -claim insurance policy for 60 days and they were allowed refund of 30 days as they could not stay in Australia for 60 days.

THESE documents coupled with the affidavit of Brig. Gobinder Singh suggest that all the five appellants had asked the respondents to confirm their tickets to Sydney/Australia from 7.5.2004 to 2.7.2004 and the respondents through Ms. Param Shergill had promised to get the needful done. She had assured them to supply concessional tickets in a group of 10 without informing them that group had to return together. Documents placed on record further show that original return journey ticket was booked for 2nd July, 2004 but on the eve of departure of appellants, the return journey tickets for 2nd July were cancelled and on the other hand were confirmed for 7.6.2004 and for this reason the departure from Chandigarh was delayed for six hours as the appellants were insisting that they should be given confirmed tickets for return journey for 2.7.2004 as originally promised by the respondents. However, respondents appeared to have assured the appellants that the needful would be done and even gave stickers of IATA marking for 2nd July with the directions to paste it on the tickets when the tickets were confirmed for 2nd July. She did not bring to the notice of appellants that their 5 tickets booked for return journey for 2.7.2004 had been cancelled and instead of booked for return journey for 7.6.2004 because in a group they had to go together and return together. It is well known that the travel agents do exploit innocent customers. Even educated people are looted by them on various promises and assurances. Such type of practice on behalf of travel agents is required to be curved with heavy hands. Therefore, we hold that there was deficiency in service on behalf of respondents. Due to the deficiency in service, the appellants had to cut short their journey which caused them much mental harassment and agony and had to leave Sydney abruptly without fulfilling their purpose of visit. Their loss cannot be measured in terms of money. It is all a matter of guess work. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that it will be fair and equitable if each of the appellants is allowed compensation of Rs. 15,000. Accordingly we allow compensation of Rs. 75,000 to five appellants. If the payment is not made within one month, then respondents would be liable to pay it with 6% p.a. interest. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is accepted with costs and the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 15,000 to each of the appellants as compensation for deficiency in service. If the payment is not made within one month, respondents would pay interest @ 6% p.a. The costs are quantified at Rs. 2,000. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal allowed. -