J Swaraj vs Stic Travels

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

THE Complainant purchased from the 2nd Opposite Party confirmed air -tickets for himself, his wife, son and daughter for departure from Madras on 27.4.1992 to Kuala Lumpur then to Singapore and back to Madras by Malaysian Airlines. On 27.4.1992 when he went to the airport, he was shocked to find that their tickets were not confirmed but they were however able to secure confirmation and left Madras to Kuala Lumpur in the same flight. On 21.5.1992 at Kuala Lumpur the Complainant contacted the airlines authorities for ''confirmation of return journey tickets for 25.5.1992, but he was informed that the tickets was not confirmed. The Complainant and his party had to stay at Kuala Lumpur as the next available date for confirmed journey from Singapore to Madras was only on 4.6.1992. On account of this delay, the Complainant had to meet extra expenditure during their stay and they were put to much mental pain and hardship. The Complainant also claims to have missed his business commitment at Madras. He has therefore come -forward with this claim for compensation in the sum of Rs. 22,000/for expenses incurred by the Complainant for the stay in Kuala Lumpur from 25.5.1992 to 4.6.1992, the sum of Rs. 50,000/for mental agony and the sum of Rs. 50,000/ - for loss of business, in all Rs. 1,22,000/ -. The 2nd Opposite Party has filed a detailed counter which has been adopted by the 1st Opposite Party. It is contented that the Complaint is bad for non -joiner of the Complainants wife and children and the Malaysian Airlines System. The deficiency alleged is denied. It is averred that the confirmed tickets issued to the Complainant and his party was (1) by flight No. 183 on 27.4.1992 from Madras to Kuala Lumpur, (2) by flight No. 605 on 12.5.1992 from Kuala Lumpur to Singapur, (3) by flight No. 604 on 25.5.1992 from Singapur to Kuala Lumpur, and (4) by flight No. 180 on 25.5.1992 from Kuala Lumpur to Madras. It is denied that the Complainant did not get a confirmed booking on 27.4.1992 from Madras to Kuala Lumpur. He and his party traveled on that day from Madras to Kuala Lumpur without any problem. The carriage of the passengers are governed by the Warsaw conversions and the relevant rule appearing at page 12 of the tickets is as follows : ''If you break your journey for more than 72 hours at any point, please re -confirm your intention of using continuing or return reservation, to do so please inform the airlines office at any point where you intend to resume your journey at least 72 hours before departure of flight. Failure to reconfirm, the result in the cancellation of your reservations. If you do not hold an onward or return reservation, please contact the respective carriers Local Office of its agents, as soon as you known your travel dated''.

The Complainant failed to keep -up the schedule as per the tickets with full OK status. He failed to confirm the departure from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore on 12.5.1992 which he ought to have done on or before 9.5.1992. As per the confirmed tickets he ought to have left Kuala Lumpur on 12.5.1992 and must be stay at Singapore from 12.5.1992 to 25.5.1992. Obviously this was not done as the Complainant was at Kuala Lumpur on 21.5.1992 as admitted in the Complaint. Evidently the Complainant had prolonged his stay at Kuala Lumpur and failed to make arrangements with the carriers for re -scheduling the programmes. This was a serious lapse on the part of the Complainant. As a complainant failed to confirm his departure from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore on 12.5.1992,72 hours prior to the departure, all the subsequent flights have been cancelled. There was therefore no deficiency of service.

EXHIBITS A -1 to A -9 and B -1 to B -7 are marked. Proof affidavits has filed. No oral evidence has been let -in.

EXHIBITS A -1 series on the tickets issued to the Complainant and his wife and children. There all confirmed tickets and schedule is as follows : Sl. No. Flight No. Date From To 1. 183 27.4.92 Madras Kuala Lumpur 2. 605 12.5.92 Kuala Lumpur Singapur 3. 604 25.5.92 Singapur Kuala Lumpur 4. 180 25.5.92 Kuala Lumpur Madras

On 27.4.1992, the Complainant, his wife and children have left Madras by flight No. 183 from Madras to Kuala Lumpur as per the ticket. Though it is alleged by the Complainant that there was some difficulty in boarding the flight, the same is denied by the other side. But it is an admitted fact that as per the scheduled flight, the Complainant and his party have left Madras on 27.4.1992 to Kuala Lumpur and there can be no deficiency of service in this aspect.

AS per the schedule in the ticket, the Complainant and his party must leave Kuala Lumpur on 12.5.1992 to Singapore. As per the Warsaw conversions, any passenger breaking the journey for more than 72 hours at any point has to re -confirm his intention of using the ticket and continuing the journey. Failure to confirm will result in the cancellation of all subsequent reservations. This is really what has happened in this case. The Complainant ought to have confirmed the resumption of the journey to Singapore from Kuala Lumpur on 12.5.1992 on or before 9.5.1992. He failed to do so evidently because he did not intend to leave Kuala Lumpur on 12.5.1992. He has decided to over -stay at Kuala Lumpur and has approached the airlines only on 21.5.1992 on which date by the earlier confirmed schedule he ought to have been at Singapur and he was informed by the air -lines authorities that the subsequent reservations have been cancelled. When the Complainant decided not to leave on 12.5.1992 for Singapore and wanted to over -stay at Kuala Lumpur, he ought to have approached the airlines authorities for re -scheduling his programme well before 12.5.1992. He has failed to do so and consequently when he approached the airlines on 21.5.1992 for confirmation of his return journey on 25.5.1992, the airlines authorities have reported that his subsequent reservations have been cancelled. It is therefore the fault of the Complainant and not the fault of the airlines. The Complainant has also not come -forward with full details as to when he left to Kuala Lumpur from Singapore and by which flight and by what arrangement and how he got back to Madras, whether directly from Singapore or via Kuala Lumpur. In the circumstances we are unable to find any deficiency on the part of the airlines or the Opposite Parties.

THE contention of the Opposite Parties that the Complaint is bad for non -joinder of the wife and children of the Complainant is not sustainable. It is the Complainant, who has purchased the tickets for himself and his wife and children and he is competent to maintain this complaint. But the further contention of the Opposite Parties that the non -impleading Malaysian Airlines is bad has to be accepted. The deficiency alleged is mainly against the Malaysian Airlines System and its non -impleading is therefore fatal to this complaint. In the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed but without costs. Complaint dismissed.