INDIAN AIRLINES vs SUBRATA SINHA

THE appellant is domestic airlines run by the Government of India. Government servants are forced to take the services of the appellant airlines merely because the appellant happens to be a public enterprise. Respondent has suffered at the hands of the appellant because of compulsion of travelling by the appellant-airlines for official purpose. In spite of having a confirmed and with ''OK status'' ticket from Delhi to Bangalore, he was left high and dry when he on reaching the airport was told that due to heavy booking his ticket has been cancelled.

VIDE impugned order dated 13.9.2004 the District Forum granted only Rs. 5,000/- though respondent claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation amount for the mental agony suffered by the respondent besides the cost of the ticket of Jet Airways purchased by him for reaching his destination. Still the appellant is aggrieved and has assailed the order by preferring this appeal. The respondent who is Head of Bio Chemistry Department of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) purchased a ticket of appellant-airlines though respondent No. 2 M/s. Sphnix Travel Worldwide on 3.1.2004 and paid Rs. 19,705/- for his proposed to and fro visit from Delhi to Bangalore. The ticket was carrying OK status both ways. When he reached the airport on 14.1.2004 the date of journey well on time to check in for boarding the plane he was made to wait for long time and ultimately he was informed that there was no room for him as his ticket has been cancelled. Since he was required to reach Bangalore on 14.1.2004 he purchased a new ticket for Jet Airways one way costing Rs. 9,498/- and left for Bangalore on the same day. Since the respondent was not entitled to seek reimbursement of the amount spent by him on the ticket of Jet Airways in spite of his official visit he filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation besides the cost of the ticket of Jet Airways with 9% interest.

The appellant took the stand before the District Forum that an open ticket was issued to the respondent through respondent No. 2 with a time-limit of 17 hours on 9.1.2004 and since the respondent did not re-confirm the ticket, the booking was cancelled and, therefore, if there is any deficiency of service or any lapse or fault it is that of respondent No. 2 who failed to re-confirm the booking.

BESIDES this the Counsel for the appellant has raised following contention for setting aside the impugned order: (1) That there is no evidence that the respondent purchased ticket from the Indian Airlines directly. (2) That the respondent was having the information booklet concerning cancellation due to overbooking and, therefore, he was aware of the fact that his booking can be cancelled both for want of re-confirmation or due to heavy booking. (3) That the respondent has not produced any evidence as to the loss he suffered.

The contentions raised by the Counsel for the appellant are not only self-defeating and self-frustrating but also hit at the very foundation of relationship between a consumer and provider of service.

THE fact that the respondent was in possession of ticket of Indian Airlines shows that it was the appellant airlines which had issued the ticket. He was in possession of a ticket is sufficient proof that he purchased it from Indian Airlines through its agent. Purchase of ticket by a consumer through an agent of the Indian Airlines tantamount to direct purchase from the airlines as he is not concerned with the inter se arrangement of sale of tickets between the airlines and its agents. Once the ticket is issued by the airlines it is presumed that the same has been purchased directly. It is for promotion of business that airlines appoint agents and further to save their time, and personnel and also that of the consumers. This is remunerative mode of providing service. If such plea is allowed then the airlines would have to dispense with the system of agents which will cause immense financial loss in terms of time, money and personnel. Again mere possession of a booklet with the consumer concerning the cancellation of ticket due to heavy booking or any other enentuality cannot be a ground for cancelling the ticket which has already been accorded OK and confirmed status. Such an information for consumer is meaningless once the ticket has been given an Ok status. If such plea is accepted then all the seats which had confirmed OK status will be deemed as seats which are liable to be cancelled and can be allotted to persons of the choice of the functionaries of the airlines. Such a provision, if any in the booklet is in respect of official contingency and that too of Government and constitutional functionaries of highest order.

WE are living in a society which acknowledges only rule of law and not whim. No provider of service much less airlines can cancel the ticket of a person whom they have accorded well in advance a confirmed OK status. The consumer is not concerned as to why the airline makes overbooking. He is only concerned with himself. No person or consumer can be left in suspended animation till the last moment of his travel that he should every day telephone or ring up the airlines whether his ticket has been cancelled or not in spite of having been accorded the OK status. It is these kinds of consumers on whom airlines survive and thrive and, therefore, their interests have to be protected as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This law was brought on the statute book solely with an object of protecting the consumers from unfair trade practices and deficient services.

AS regards the contention that the respondent did not produce any evidence as to the loss he suffered the plea is completely groundless and baseless as the respondent had travelled on that date to Bangalore and being a highly placed Government functionary of a National Institute his affidavit alone was sufficient to prove that he had suffered a loss of Rs. 9,948/- besides the mental trauma and agony he underwent at the hands of the appellant. Contention that the ticket was issued by respondent No. 2 through M/s. Exchange Travel Services (IATA) a travel agent and Mr. Gupta, proprietor of said travel services undertook to reconfirm the ticket which he did not, they are liable and further that since the respondent did not purchase ticket from them they are not accountable holds water like that on the back of duck. Admittedly the respondent No. 1 was in possession of a ticket of Indian Airlines with OK status both ways i.e., Delhi to Bangalore and Bangalore to Delhi. Since the status of the ticket was OK for 14.1.2004 the question of getting it re-confirmed by respondent No. 1 did not arise as it was not an open ticket and, therefore, the time-limit of 17 hours on 9.1.2004 was not applicable and moreover it was not the concern of respondent No. 1 to get the ticket re-confirmed if at all there was any requirement, if there is an inter se arrangement between the airlines and the travel agent for such a requirement the consumer or the customer is not concerned with it.

The consumer who is in possession of ticket with OK status is entitled to travel on the said ticket irrespective of getting it reconfirmed directly some time before the actual time of journey. The travel agent is concerned with the charges for the travel and if a person holding OK status ticket fails to reach in time due to some unavoidable reasons and cannot travel he is not entitled for the refund. Similarly the airlines cannot take the plea that it has lost the revenue because of the seat having remained vacant. The airlines has already taken the charges for the seat in the plane.

NO person can be allowed to become unjustly rich by taking the money twice for the same seat. In that case the liability of the airlines will be to refund the ticket money of the person who has not travelled. Any rule such or requirement of inter se arrangement between the airlines and travel agent is contrary to the interests of the consumer which have to be protected at any cost. In the instant case the respondent who happens to be Head of the Department of AIIMS was left high and dry when he reached the airport and told that since the ticket was not got re-confirmed within the limit of 17 hours on 9.1.2004 the booking has been cancelled. The mental tension, harassment and agony one suffers in such a situation when required to attend an official seminar or some function is unfathomable. Though monetary compensation provides a slight relief yet it is not a panacea. It was to his good luck that he got the ticket of Jet Airways to reach Bangalore in time. Otherwise he would have suffered more.

IN today''s world of competitiveness, comfort and convenience of the consumers should be paramount in the minds of providers of services. Since the appellant airlines gets quite a good business from the Government functionaries as there is compulsion to travel only by the appellant-Airlines for the purpose of reimbursement, does not mean that it can act arbitrarily and capriciously and become law unto itself. It is on account of such conduct that the other private airlines who provide efficient and comfortable services to the consumers leave the Government enterprises much behind in terms of business and reputation. Without tarrying further on these aspects, we find the appeal completely devoid of merit and misconceived and dismiss the same in limine as the District Forum has taken a highly conservative view while granting the compensation for the mental tension, agony and harassment suffered by the respondent. The FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal dismissed.