K. RAVINDRAN vs SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD.

THE complainant in O.P. No. 118 of 1991 on the file of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras is the appellant in this appeal. He had purchased two confirmed tickets for himself and his wife to fly from Madras to Seoul via Singapore and back by Singapore Airlines Ltd., (Opposite Party). THE flight from Madras was scheduled to take off at 2350 Hrs. on September 22, 1990. According to the case put forward by the complainant before the State Commission, himself and his wife reported at the check-in-counter of the Opposite Party at 2230 Hrs. on September 22, 1990 but the officials at the counter refused to issue boarding passes to the complainant and his wife and instead made a wrong endorsement in their tickets that they had reported at the check-incounter only at 2300 Hrs. Even though the staff of the Singapore Airlines endorsed the tickets of the complainant and his wife in favour of Air India so that they could travel by the early morning flight of Air India to Singapore and proceed to Seoul by catching the connecting flight from Singapore as per original schedule itself, the complainant cancelled the trip. Alleging that the denial of boarding cards to him and his wife was illegal and constituted a ''deficiency in service'' and that it had caused serious hardship, loss and mental agony to both of them, the complainant claimed recovery of compensation of Rs. 1 lakh as well as refund of the fare of Rs. 27,366/- paid by him for the tickets.

IN the detailed counter statement filed by the Opposite Party it was submitted that for international flights the passengers are required to report at the check-in-counter three hours before the scheduled time of departure and this fact had been duly notified to the complainant by a sticker attached to the jacket in which the tickets were issued to him and his wife. The complainant had, as a matter of fact, reported at the check-incounter only at 2300 Hrs. on September 22,1990 but since by that time the counter had been closed no boarding cards could be issued to them. However, in order to avoid any inconvenience to the complainant, the Opposite Party went out of its way and endorsed the tickets in question for travel by an Air INdia flight which was leaving for Singapore in the early hours of the morning of September 23, 1990 and since the complainant was scheduled to leave Singapore for Seoul only on the morning of September 24, 1990, he could very well have taken advantage of this endorsement, travelled by Air INdia flight to Singapore and proceeded to Seoul by the connecting Singapore Airlines flight without interruption to his original programme. The Opposite Party denied that there was any wrongful or illegal failure on its part to issue boarding passes nor had there been any deficiency on its part. The complainant''s claim for recovery of compensation was stoutly refuted by the Opposite Party. The complainant examined himself as PW 1 before the State Commission and exhibits A 1 to 10 were marked on his side. The Opposite Party examined the Sales Executive of the concerned travel agent who issued the tickets M/s. Travel India Bureau Private Ltd., as RW 1. The official of the Singapore Airlines who was manning the check- in-counter at the relevant time was examined as RW 2, the Station Manager of the Airlines at Madras as RW 3 and its two Customers Service Supervisor Agents as RW 4 and RW 5 respectively. Exhibits B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the Opposite Party.

After an elaborate discussion and detailed scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the State Commission held that the tickets - Exhibits A2 and A3 had been delivered to the complainant in a jacket exactly similar to Exhibit Bl wherein all the particulars regarding the flight number, the time of departure and the time of reporting had been duly entered. The testimony of RW 1 that the reporting time had been clearly mentioned on the Jacket as 2000 Hrs. was believed by the State Commission. The State Commission also observed that since the complainant himself had been frequently traveling abroad, he could not be unaware of the fact that in international flights the passengers are expected to report three hours before the schedule time of departure. The State Commission has also found that the evidence clearly established that the complainant had reported at the check-in-counter only at 2300 Hrs. as seen from the endorsement of Exhibits Al 1 and A12 in the two tickets and that subsequently an attempt had been made at the instance of the complainant to tamper with and alter the entries in Exhibits A11 and A12 as 2245 Hrs. in order to advance the case of the complainant. The correctness of all these findings recorded by the State Commission is vehemently questioned by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

AFTER hearing the Counsel appearing on both sides and careful going through the evidence available on record, we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the State Commission are perfectly correct and fully supported by the evidence and they do not call for any interference in appeal. We uphold the conclusion recorded by the State Commission that the complainant and his wife had reported at the check-in-counter of the Singapore Airlines at the Madras Airport on the date of journey (22.10.1990) only at 2300 Hrs. which was just 50 minutes before the scheduled time of departure. Since by that time the counter had been already closed, there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in refusing to issue Boarding passes to them. In fact, far from being negligent or indifferent the Opposite Party had gone out of its way and endorsed the Two tickets of the complainant and his wife lo Air India for enabling them to travel by an Air India flight lo Singapore by a flight which was scheduled to take off from Madras in the early hours of the next morning. The case put forward by the complainant that the Opposite Party had illegally and negligently failed to issue boarding passes and committed deficiency in service and thereby caused loss to the complainant was rightly rejected by the State Commission. While disallowing any compensation to the complainant, the State Commission has directed the Opposite Party to refund to the complainant the fare paid for the two tickets, evidenced by Exhibits A2 and A3 on the surrender of those tickets by the complainant to the Opposite Party. This was all the relief that the complainant was entitled to and that having been allowed to him, this appeal is totally devoid of merits.

THIS appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs, which we fix at Rs. 2,500/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.