Indian Airlines Ltd. vs TRAVLINX TRAVELS PVT. LTD.

THE respondent/complainant Shri R.P. Singh (since deceased) availed the facility of Leave Travel Concession (for short hereinafter referred to as LTC) from his employer-Punjab and Sind Bank at Patiala for himself and his wife Mrs. Gurinder Jit Kaur and minor son Shri Simranjit Singh and minor daughter Ms. Bahoor Jit Kaur for travelling to Leh for the period from 26.6.2000 to 3.7.2000. This facility of LTC was available to him only once in every four years and the same could not be carried forward. With a view to avail the LTC facility, the deceased complainant Shri R.P. Singh approached the O.P. No. 1 - M/s. Travlinx Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 28-30, First Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh who were the authorised agents of the appellant-M/s. Indian Airlines Ltd. having their office in Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. THE tickets were booked much in advance. THE first leg of journey was from Jammu to Leh, which was on 1.5.2000 itself. THE return tickets were from Jammu to Leh. THE invoice number for the return journey was 3211 dated 2.5.2001. THE tickets both ways i.e. onward journey as well as return journey showed OK status. THE deceased complainant with his wife and two minor children with a view to avail LTC, left for Jammu in a hired taxi to catch the flight on 26.6.2000 and paid to the taxi cab driver a sum of Rs. 2,900/-. THEy reached the airport well in time for check-in of the flight but at the airport in Jammu, they learnt that their names did not figure in the list of passengers. THEy were told that their confirmed tickets from Jammu to Jindal have been cancelled on the instructions of O.P. No. 2- M/s. Hargobind Travels, SCO No. 130-131, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh and against their seats, some other passengers were booked. THE complainant and his family members had no option but to return to Patiala after spending one night in a hotel at Jammu. Later on he came to Chandigarh and discussed the matter with the O.Ps. but none of them could satisfactorily explain the mess in which the complainant and his family members found themselves on 26.6.2000 at the Jammu airport.

THE O.Ps. tried to pass on the buck to one and the other. THE written representation was made on 21.7.2000 to the appellant-Indian Airlines Ltd. and in response, they sent a letter of apology dated 9.8.2000 but they did not compensate him. However, on 23.10.2000, the appellant called upon the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 to refund air tickets to the complainant pending the resolution and other disputes between the parties. Accordingly, O.Ps. 1 and 2 refunded the air tickets fair of a sum of Rs. 12,972/- on 3.10.2000. At the same time, since the complainant could not avail the LTC facility after drawing an advance from the Punjab and Sind Bank, was involved in some domestic inquiry despite the fact that he had deposited back the advance amount withdrawn by him from the Bank for availing the LTC facility. This led to the filing of the complaint. THE complainant eventually died and the complaint was pursued by his Legal Representatives comprising his wife and two minor daughters under her guardianship. The complainants claimed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant by the acts of omission and commission on the part of O.Ps. who were deficient in rendering the service to the deceased complainant. A sum of Rs. 11,000/- was claimed as costs of litigation. Interest was also claimed on these amounts @ 18% per annum.

Notices were issued to the O.Ps. O.P. No. 1 did not appear to contest the case and was proceeded ex parte. The O.P. No. 2 was duly served and their representative Shri Rajesh Kumar appeared in the District Forum on 25.4.2001 and sought time to file the written statement for which date was fixed for 20.8.2001. However, none appeared on the adjourned date of 20.8.2001 and the O.P. No. 2 was also proceeded ex parte. The O.P. No. 2-M/s. Hargobind Travels sent letter dated 25.4.2001 addressed to the President, District Forum appointing Shri Rajesh Kumar as the authorized person to appear before the District Forum. As mentioned earlier, he did not appear subsequently and did not file any written statement or evidence. The case was contested by the O.P. No. 3- appellant-M/s. Indian Air Lines Ltd., which did not deny the fact that the complainant purchased four air tickets for the flight from Jammu to Leh and back and that the seats for travel from Jammu to Leh for 26.6.2000 had been confirmed. The appellant took a plea that the O.P. No. 1 was not their authorised agent.

THE main contention of the appellant was that the confirmed tickets from Jammu to Leh were cancelled on the instructions from O.P. No. 2-M/s. Hargobind Travels vide its letter Annexure R-3/1. It was further contended that the complainant never met the Station Supervisor, Indian Airlines, Jammu nor he reported the matter to the Indian Airlines Authority at Jammu Airport. It was also denied as a fact that the complainant had ever reached Jammu for catching the flight because he had already made request to O.P. No. 2 for cancellation of those tickets, which were cancelled. In addition to this, it was contended that on the flight in question, overall 36 passengers who were on the waiting list were accommodated and had the complainant contacted the Manager of the appellant-M/s. Indian Airlines Ltd. at Jammu, he could also be accommodated along with his wife and two minor children on the said flight. THE receipt of taxi fair was also disputed and was described to be a suspicious document. THE allegations of mental and physical harassment or financial loss on account of cancellation of the tickets were denied. It was pleaded that the appellant acted immediately on receiving the complaint from the complainant and took up the matter with the O.P. No. 2, for apprising the factual position. THE O.P. No. 2 in its letter informed that the return journey was not being confirmed and the complainant had got his tickets cancelled on 9.5.2000. On behalf of the respondents/complainants, Smt. Gurinderjit Kaur filed her affidavit and placed on record copies of documents including receipt for payment of Rs. 12,972/- (C-1) for purchasing four air tickets from Jammu to Leh. Annexure C-2 is the copy of tickets. Annexure C-3 is the receipt of taxi for the fair of the taxi. Annexure C-4 is the copy of legal notice dated 21.7.2000 served by the complainant on the O.Ps. Annexure C-5 is the letter dated 9.8.2000 from the O.P. to the complainant in reply to the legal notice dated 21.7.2000. Annexure C-6 is the copy of show-cause notice dated 25.8.2000 served by his employer on the complainant. Annexure C-7 is another letter/notice dated 4.11.2000 served by the complainant to the Chairman of Indian Airlines (O.P. No. 3). Annexure C-8 is a letter dated 9.5.2000 from his employer to the complainant informing him that permission had been granted to him for advance of Rs. 11,000/-. Annexure C-9 is the certificate dated 24.10.2000 issued by the Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala certifying that the complainant had re-deposited the amount of Rs. 11,000/- and Rs. 17,876.84, which had been paid to him by the said Bank as LTC advance.

THE appellant filed affidavit of Shri B.P. Nautiyal, Station Manager of O.P. No. 3 and annexed copy of letter (Annexure R-3/1) addressed by the O.P. No. 2 to O.P. No. 3/appellant. Annexure R-3/2 was the application of the complainant dated 23.10.2000 praying for the refund of amount of air tickets. Annexure R-3/3 was the waiting list of 26.6.2000 of the Jammu Airport for the Jammu-Leh flight. Annexure R-3/5 was the passenger and package list of the Jammu-Leh flight for 26.6.2000. The District Forum rejected the objection of the appellant that the O.P. No. 1 was not their agent. It was held that there was legal relationship between the appellant and the O.P. No. 1 because without that O.P. No. 1 would not abide by the command of O.P. No. 3. On merit, it was held that the complainant suffered from the cancellation of the confirmed seats of the complainant and his family members for Jammu-Leh flight on 26.6.2000 without any rhyme or reason or without any request from him, which was a clear case of deficiency on the part of O.Ps. Based on this finding, the complaint was allowed partly and the O.Ps. were directed to refund a sum of Rs. 17,972/- to the Legal Represntatives of the complainant with interest @ 8% per annum from 2.5.2000 till the date of its refund i.e. 23.10.2000 after adjusting the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,972/-, which the O.Ps. refunded to the complainant on 23.10.2000. A sum of Rs. 60,000/- was awarded as compensation to the Legal Heirs and successors of the complainant on the various amounts. The litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- was also awarded. The order was directed to be complied by the O.Ps. within two months from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 60,000/- till payment. The impugned order has now been challenged in this appeal by the O.P. No. 3- M/s. Indian Air Lines Ltd. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the various paragraphs of the complaint particularly paras 2 to 5 and 12(b) and to Annexure C-4. It was contended that the taxi receipt was a fabricated document and it could not be relied upon. Reference was placed on letter of M/s. Hargobind Travels Ltd. (Annexure R-3/1). It was admitted that O.P. No. 2 was the authorized agent of the appellant and the liability of O.P. No. 3 arises from Jammu only and not from Patiala to Jammu.

MR. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate appearing for the respondent/complainant submitted that the receipt for the taxi was quite genuine as the same was issued the next day after the night was spent at Jammu, in the night intervening 25/26.6.2000. The cancellation of the seats was brought to the notice of the complainant (since deceased) at Jammu airport. The liability of O.P. No. 3-appellant was for the acts of omission on the part of their agent-O.P. No. 2.

THE tickets for the flight showed clearly that the complainant had confirmed tickets for undertaking the journey from Jammu to Leh. THE tickets from Leh to Jammu showed WL i.e. wait-listed. THE fact, however, remains that the complainant had the confirmed tickets at least for his onward journey from Jammu to Leh. THEse tickets are said to have been cancelled at the instructions of the deceased complainant communicated to the appellant by O.P. No. 2- M/s. Hargobind Travels. M/s. Hargobind Travels did not contest the case inasmuch as after putting appearance, it absented itself and no evidence was led by the O.P. No. 2. Under these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the case set up regarding the cancellation on 9.5.2000 of air tickets for onward journey from Jammu to Leh. Vide letter written No. CHD/GC-6/1694 dated 9.8.2000, the appellant in response to the letter of the deceased complainant dated 21.7.2000 (Annexure C-4), wrote to him, inter alia, as under : "Dear Sir, At the outset we sincerely regret for the inconvenience caused as stated in your letter dated 21.7.2000 and have noted the contents with concern. The incident is of a very serious nature. We have taken up the matter with M/s. Hargobind Travels, Chandigarh and shall revert on completion of our investigation. Thanking you and assuring you our best attention at all times."

The appellant admitted the fact that the incident was of a very serious nature and the appellant had taken up the matter with M/s. Hargobind Travels, Chandigarh. It is thus clear that the deceased complainant Shri R.P. Singh was not the person who approached the O.P. No. 2 for cancellation of his air tickets for the journey from Jammu to Leh, which was scheduled to take place on 26.6.2000 and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the defence taken by the appellant on the basis of the communication from the O.P. No. 2 M/s. Hargobind Travels, Chandigarh.

APART from this, the deceased complainant was put to lot of harassment as would appear from perusal of the document marked Annexure C-6 dated 25.8.2000, which is memo issued by employers of the deceased complainant i.e. Punjab and Sind Bank, which called for the explanation from him as to why action be not taken against him. The complainant continued to communicate with the appellant-M/s. Indian Air Lines Ltd. and wrote out letters Annexure C-7 dated 4.11.2000. Annexure C-8 is letter 9.5.2000 of the Bank sanctioning advance of Rs. 11,000/- for availing LTC facility. The Bank subsequently vide Certificate dated 24.10.2000 (Annexure C-9) certified that Shri R.P. Singh had re-deposited a sum of Rs. 17,876.84 P on account of LTC. In our considered opinion, not much benefit can be derived by the appellant from the fact that all the members of the waiting list as on 26.6.2000 were accommodated on their specially requesting for being accommodated because the complainant''s tickets were cancelled and after cancellation of the air tickets, these were allotted to some other passengers. We are of the considered opinion that the deceased complainant was put to a great harassment and loss and as rightly submitted by his Counsel Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate, he travelled up to Jammu to catch the flight with his family members as aforesaid, spent a night there and paid to the taxi cab the fair and on reaching Jammu airport, he learnt to his dismay that the names of the complainant and his family members were not shown in the list of passengers flying from Jammu to Leh on 26.6.2000. The District Forum, in our considered opinon, rightly held that the appellant was bound by the acts and omissions on the part of its agent and was deficient in rendering service to the complainant and as such the complaint was rightly allowed. The amount of compensation and litigation expenses appears to be quite just and proper and no interference is called for in the same.

RESULTANTLY, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with costs, which we quantified at Rs. 250/-. Let these directions be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.