GULF AIR vs PREMA VISWANATHAN

THE 2nd opposite party "Gulf Air" against which an award has been passed by District Forum, Madras (South) is the appellant.

THE complainant Prema Viswanathan purchased air ticket from the 1st opposite party SHIBI Travels Pvt. Ltd., for travelling by Gulf Air the 2nd opposite party by paying a sum of Rs. 45,185/- under International Bill. THE complainant was to travel from Madras to London and back. THE complainant was informed that the Muscat-Madras Sector was on priority waiting list and the other sectors were confirmed. THE complainant was to board the Gulf Air along with her husband at London on 13.5.1994 to return to Madras. During their stay at London, they were anxiously contacting the 2nd opposite party Gulf Air at London regarding the complainant''s reservation status in the Muscat- Madras Sector. But reservation was not confirmed until the last minute. THE Gulf Air flights from Muscat to Madras were heavily booked for next 10 to 15 days. THE complainant had no enough foreign exchange to remain in London any longer. While so, on enquiry the complainant found that in "Air India" and "British Airways", there were some seats available and they would accommodate the complainant if the 2nd opposite party would endorse in the concerned portion of the ticket for the complainant to return to Madras on any of those airlines. THE complainant requested the 2nd opposite party at London to make such endorsement. Now the case of the complainant is that the 2nd opposite party at London sent messages to the office of the 2nd opposite party at Madras requesting to permit the 2nd opposite party at London to endorse as requested by the complainant to any one of the airlines, but the office of the 2nd opposite party at Madras refused to give such permission to the office of the 2nd opposite party at London. THE complainant had to stay in London for one more day and with the assistance of their friends they purchased fresh air ticket in "Air India". Later the complainant requested the 2nd opposite party to compensate her but the 2nd opposite party failed to do so. Because of the refusal of the 2nd opposite party to make endorsement, the complainant had to spend a sum of 86,000/-. On these grounds, the complaint has been filed. The opposite parties contended that the ticket of the complainant was under excursion fare. The complainant''s journey from Muscat to Madras was not confirmed and it was on waiting list and this was informed to the complainant before the ticket was purchased. At no point of time the 2nd opposite party promised to confirm the return journey from Muscat to Madras. Therefore it was not the responsibility of the "Gulf Air" if she was not able to travel in "Gulf Air" from Muscat to Madras on 13.5.1994 and she had travelled in "Air India". It was further contended that the complainant should have stayed for a minimum of 14 days at the place of destination i.e. London to entitle her ticket to be endorsed or to be shifted to another airlines by the 2nd opposite party, but the complainant had stayed only for one week and the 2nd opposite party cannot in any circumstance give an endorsement in Excursion Fare ticket and hence the 2nd opposite party was not in a position to make an endorsement. Normally endorsement would be made only in extraordinary circumstances like cancellation of flight or major dislocation in the flight schedule. There was no such extraordinary circumstances for the complainant to seek for endorsement. Therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

The District Forum held that the refusal of the 2nd opposite party to make endorsement as required by the complainant amounted to deficiency in service. On this finding it ordered the 2nd opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 26,400/- as cost of the air ticket purchased by the complainant from "Air India" for her return journey from London to Madras and Rs. 10.000/- for her one more day''s stay at London and Rs.5,000/-ascompensation for mental agony.

IN the appeal now it is contended by the appellant/2nd opposite party that the order of the District Forum is not sustainable in law and on facts. On a careful consideration of the matter we find much force in it. It is common case that the ticket purchased by the complainant was issued under Excursion Fare which is a single fare component that includes both onward and return journey, and irrespective of whether the passenger performs single journey or return journey the fare component remains the same. Admittedly, the complainant knew at the time of purchase of the ticket that there was reservation for the onward journey and upto Muscat during return journey and there was no reservation from Muscat to Madras. It is also not disputed that from Muscat to Madras the flight in "Gulf Air" had been heavily booked for 10 to 15 days. IN these circumstances, there was no possibility of travelling in the "Gulf Air". Now the only grievance of the complainant is that there were seats available in "Air INdia" and "British Airways" and making an endorsement the 2nd opposite party could have enabled the complainant to travel in any of those airlines but her request for that had been turned down by the 2nd opposite party and this amounts to negligence on their part. The question arises whether the 2nd opposite party was under any law or agreement or undertaking bound to make such endorsement. It was not brought to our notice any such law or agreement or undertaking. That being the case no deficiency in service, as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act arises. May be there was practice of making such endorsement by airlines but from that it cannot be said that the 2nd opposite party was liable to make such endorsement. IN this connection, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant brought to our notice some portions in Page 49 in "WORLD WIDE TARIFF, IT, ROUTINGS & RE ROUTINGS" RULES, 1995. But on carefully going through it, we do not find anything that shows that the 2nd opposite party were legally bound to make such endorsement. IN these circumstances, it cannot be said that the 2nd opposite party has committed any deficiency in service to the complainant. The District Forum does not seem to have adverted to this point at all. As such the complaint cannot be maintained. In the result, the appeal is allowed; the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.