INDIAN AIRLINES LTD vs TRAVLINX TRAVELS PVT LTD

-PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent No. 3, Mr. R. P. Singh (since deceased) had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

VERY briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of complaint are, that the respondent No. 3 who was an employee of the Bank, with a view to utilize his Leave Travel Concession facility decided to go to Leh for vacation for which he booked tickets for himself and other family members from Jammu to Leh through the authorized agent of the petitioner Indian Airlines. The complainant and his family reached Jammu by road and then contacted the Airlines on 26/6/2000 to catch the Jammu-Leh flight. They were told that their tickets had been cancelled on instructions from the agent. As per the complainant, the matter was taken upon with the Station Manager and other authorities but nothing could be done. The matter was again taken up with the travel agent as also the petitioner. But when nothing came out of this effort, a complaint was filed before the District Forum wherein only petitioner who was opposite party No. 3 appeared and argued the case. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before us remained ex parte. The District Forum after going through the material, and hearing the petitioner, allowed the complaint wherein the opposite parties were directed to refund cost of the tickets along with the interest @ 8% p. a. from 2/5/2000 till the date of its refund i. e. 23/10/2000, this being the date of payment made by the O. Ps. The opposite parties were also directed to pay Rs. 60,000. 00 as compensation to the legal heirs and successors to the complainant along with cost of Rs. 3,000. This payment was to be made within 2 months from the date of receipt of order, failing which it shall carry interest @ 8% p. a. on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 60,000. 00. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner alone filed an appeal before the State Commission who after hearing the parties i. e. the petitioner and the complainant, and perusal of material on record, dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs. 250. 00. Hence, this revision petition before us.

Before us, despite service, none is present on behalf of respondent No. 1. Hence, he is proceeded ex parte. Before us, there is a representation for the first time in this case on behalf of M/s. Har Govind Travels, the travel agent.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Both the below Fora have clearly returned findings on two points, namely, that the complainant held a confirmed ticket for travelling from Jammu to Leh on 26/6/2000 and when the family reached Jammu, they were told that their tickets had been cancelled on advice from the agent of the petitioner. We see on record that no material, whatsoever, has been produced by the petitioner before any Fora, in support of his contention in the form of any computer output or any written instruction, that the tickets were to be or were cancelled on the advice of the complainant. Before us, an undated letter has been produced from Har Govind Travels which reads as under: "dear Sir, this is in response to your letter dated 9/8/2000, we have tried to contact the passenger but he is not available all the times whenever we have called up there on phone. While issuing the ticket the IXJ IXL sector was confirmed and the return sector was requested. Later the passenger requested us to cancel the tickets if the return sector is not going to be confirmed. The itinerary was cancelled on his request and we requested him to send the tickets back to us within 24 hours to stamp them as cancelled as per the rules but he sent the tickets after so many days. "

Since M/s. Har Govind Travels were not present before the District Forum or State Commission, this letter remained unproved, unsubstantiated and since there is no date of this letter, we are unable to satisfy us as to the cause and origin of this letter which might have been obtained from Har Govind Travels by the petitioner in order to cover their tracks. The best evidence was any communication or otherwise from Har Govind Travels in their record or their communication through any normal means, which normally is in the form of a computer output but no such record has been produced before any Fora to satisfy us that the cancellation of the tickets was done by the petitioner at the instance of Har Govind Travels or at the request of the complainant.

WE will also like to mention that even though Har Govind Travels has decided to be present before us in response to issuance of a notice, yet there is neither any written version nor any document filed by them giving their version or response to the complaint filed before the District Forum. Mere presence of a Counsel does not help the case of M/s. Har Govind Travels or for that matter of the petitioner Indian Airlines. They should have produced the primary evidence which was with them explaining the very basis on which they cancelled the confirmed tickets of the complainant''s travelling from Jammu to Leh. In the absence of any material we find that this was a case in which the complainants were denied boarding despite having confirmed tickets and not to permit them to travel despite having confirmed tickets becomes a case of ''denied Boarding''. In view of law settled in catena of judgments of this Commission, the complainants would be entitled to ''denied Boarding Compensation'', besides, refund of the cost and tickets. It is admitted position that the latter part of the order has already been complied with. Hence, the complainant shall be entitled to Denied Boarding Compensation which this Court has fixed equivalent to 300 US dollars in the case of Rajinder Pal Jaura (NRI) v/s. Secretary, Union of India and Anr. , I (2003) CPJ 24 (NC)=2002 (2) CLD 1771, decided by this Commission which in this case, will go to 1200 U. S. dollars. In the aforesaid circumstances, the opposite parties before the District Forum i. e. petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to jointly and severally pay the amount equivalent to 1200 US dollars at the rate of exchange prevailing on 26/6/2000 along with interest @ 6% p. a. from 26/6/2000 till the date of payment. The complainant shall also be entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000. 00 and cost of Rs. 5000. 00. All these payments should be made within a period of 4 weeks failing which the complainant shall be free to proceed under Sec. 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. This Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly in above terms. Revision Petition disposed of.