MANOJ KUMAR SINGH vs SINGAPORE AIRLINES PVT. LTD.

THE brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is an Associate Professor in All India Institute of Medical Sciences. In order to further improve his academic qualifications, the complainant applied to the Royal College of Pathologists, London (U.K.) to appear in an examination for Diploma in Dermatopathology. THE above said examination was scheduled to be held on 22.3.1994 at Hong Kong. THE complainant booked his ticket for Hong Kong through his travel agent M/s. Air Travel Bureau on 8.3.1994. THE complainant handed over his Passport No. 689259 to his travel agent, who in turn is said to have delivered it to the Singapore Airlines General Sales Agents (GSA), M/s. Jet Air Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi for issue of an air ticket in Singapore Airlines Flight scheduled for 20.3.1994 for travel from Delhi to Hong Kong and back. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite paty negligently lost the passport of the complainant. An FIR was lodged by the opposite party with the Police Station, Hanuman Road, New Delhi on 11.3.1994 and the opposite party also informed M/s. Air Travel Bureau, the travel agent of the complainant, about the loss of the passport vide letter dated 11.3.1994. THE complainant was also informed about the said loss of passport on 12.3.1994. THE opposite party asked the complainant to submit an application for the issue of a duplicate passport on 15.3.1994 which was submitted at the Regional Passport Office on the same day. However, it was later discovered that the said application was incomplete as a No Objection Certificate and a Character Certificate was required to be annexed with it. It is the case of the complainant that he had to visit the Regional Passport Officer, in order to ascertain deficiency in the application and had to run to and fro, from the Regional Passport Office to All India Institute of Medical Sciences and after obtaining the necessary certificates, as mentioned above, submitted the same alongwith his application to the Regional Passport Office for the issue of a duplicate passpost. THE grievance of the complainant is that from 15th to 17th March all his efforts were diverted towards completing the formalities for a duplicate passport and as such could not study or make the necessary preparations for the examination. Further because of the said loss he was put under great anxiety and mental stress, as a result of which he failed in the examination and suffered the losses as detailed in para 13 of the complaint. THE complainant also sent a legal notice dated 23.6.1994 to the opposite party to compensate him for the injury suffered by him, due to the negligence of the opposite party. However, since the opposite party refused to acknowledge its liability vide reply dated 20.7.1994, the complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Act before this Commission, claiming various reliefs.

THE opposite party has duly served and put in its appearance through its Counsel and filed a reply/written version. In the said reply/written version the opposite party has raised several preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the present complaint. THE first preliminary objection is that the complainant has not made any averment against the opposite party regarding any deficiency in service and as such the complaint is not maintainable. THE second preliminary objection is that the opposite party has rendered services in excess of its contractual obligation and were it not for the good offices of the opposite party, the complainant would not have been able to travel to Hong Kong as per schedule and as such there was no deficiency in service on its part. THE third preliminary objection is that the claims preferred by the complainant, in the present complaint, have no proximity whatsoever to the cause alleged by him and that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant for undue enrichment. On merits, the opposite party has stated in its reply/written version, that there is no deficiency in service on its part as its staff had not received the passport from M/s. A.T.B., the travel agent of the complainant nor was there any endorsement of the passport having been annexed with the exchange order left behind by M/s. ATB. It was also stated in its reply by the opposite party that it was only at the request of M/s. ATB who are travel agents of repute and considering the travel schedule of the complainant, that the opposite party had agreed to lodge an FIR for the loss of passport with the Police Station. This was done only to expedite the procedure for obtaining a duplicate passport for the complainant, which in ordinary routine would have entailed a lengthy and expensive procedure. THE opposite party also submitted in its reply that the opposite party had rendered services to the complainant beyond its contractual obligations, by using its good offices and staff to ensure that the complainant got his duplicate passport and Visa in time to travel as per schedule. It is further stated that the losses alleged by the complainant, for which compensation is claimed, in the present complaint, have no nexus with the deficiency in service alleged i.e. loss of passport. We have heard the arguments addressed by the Counsels for both the paries, and have gone through the documents/material on record. Having regard to the admitted facts of the present case, the following two issues arise for our consideration : (1) Whether in view of the given facts, there was any ''deficiency in service'' on the part of opposite party, as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. (2) Whether the compensation claimed for losses incurred by the complainant have any proximity with the deficiency in service alleged.

Refer to I above :

The first issue before us is whether there is any deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party, in the present set of circumstances. The Counsel for the complainant has alleged that the complainant had to undergo great stress and anxiety on account of the loss of his passport, due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party and had to run to and fro, from All India Institute of Medical Sciences to the Regional Passport Office from 15th to 17.3.1994, in order to obtain a duplicate passport, as a result of which the time set aside by the complainant for going through his research work and study, for the examination to be held at Hong Kong on 22.3.1994 was wasted and as such the complainant failed in the said examination.

ON the other hand the Counsel for the opposite party has contended that the passport was never sent to the opposite party alongwith the exchange order, by the travel agent of the complainants, and there was no endorsement, on the exchange order, about the passport being attached or sent with it. It was further argued that even though, the staff of opposite party was certain that the passport was not delivered to them, still, believing the complainant and on the request of M/s. ATB, the travel agents of the complainant, the opposite party filed an FIR with the Police Station, regarding the loss of passport, only in order to expedite the process of obtaining a duplicate passport, which would in ordinary routine have taken about three months. Thereby the opposite party had saved the time and expenses of the complainant and ensured that the complainant could travel to Hong Kong on the appointed date i.e. 20.3.1994. It was also pointed out that the complainant or his travel agent were not required to part with the possession of the passport, which is only required to be shown to the Ticketing Office for the issuance of an entitlement form for drawing foreign exchange under the Foreign Travel Scheme. If the complainant/his travel agent had left his passport with the Ticketing Office, it was at his own risk and responsibility. We are inclined to agree with the contentions put forward by the Counsel for the opposite party that even if it is believed that the loss of passport was occasioned by the opposite party, the complainant''s own negligence in parting with such an important document to his travel agent, M/s. ATB and the fact that the said travel agent sent the passport with the exchange order to the Ticketing Office of opposite party, cannot be ignored. It was as much the responsibility of the travel agent of the complainant to ensure that a sensitive document like the passport, without which the complainant would not be in a position to travel at all, should not have been handled so carelessly. The complainant has, not even made the said travel agentm M/s. ATB a party to the present complaint, nor has alleged any negligence against it. In the face of the denial of the opposite party that the passport of the complainant was ever sent to them or left with them, and M/s. ATB, the travel agent, not being a party to this complaint, it is an open question, whether the alleged passport was ever entrusted to the opposite party. Further, the contention of the opposite party that it was at the insistence of M/s. ATB who are considered to be travel agents of repute, and considering the travel schedule of the complainant and in order to keep their own goodwill it was considered expedient that the opposite party lodge a complaint with the police because a complaint on their part would expedite the procedure for obtaining a duplicate passport, seems to be logical. Not only that, the complainant had not even applied for transit Visa for Singapore and it was only on 18.3.1994 i.e. two days before the day of travel the complainant disclosed to the opposite party that he did not have such a Visa. The opposite party used its good offices to obtain the said Visa in one day and that too on Saturday which was a holiday. Therefore, in our opinion, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party but presuming for the sake of arguments that there was deficiency in service, the opposite party had more than compensated for the same, in ensuring that the travel schedule of the complainant was not disturbed, and that he could travel on 20.3.1994 as per schedule and also appear in the examination for which he was travelling to Hong Kong. Refer to 2 above : Coming to the second controversy, we will examine whether the claims made by the complainant for compensation have any nexus to the alleged deficiency in service i.e loss of passport of the complainant. It was argued on behalf of the complainant, that from the time the complainant came to know about the loss of his passport on 12.3.1994, he was under great mental stress and anxiety, resulting in the complainant developing an Adjustment Disorder, due to which the complainant failed in the examination for which he had travelled to Hong Kong and as such, his entire travel expenses went waste, for which compensation has been claimed. In support of the said contention the complainant has placed on record an affidavit of Dr. N.G. Desai, Additional Professor, Department of Psychiatry AIIMS, Delhi, as well as relevant extracts from the book on the subject by Michael K. Poplin M.D. According to the said book a single stressor may occasion such a disorder and one of its effects would be that the individual who has previously performed capably may suddenly be unable to carry out his usual tasks, for example, inability to study and to write papers or reports. It was also contended on behalf of the complainant that the time he had reserved for his study and going through his research papers, was wasted in running around to obtain a duplicate passport, resulting in his failure in the examination for Diploma in Dermatopathology.

THE complainant has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and National Commission in support of his case for computation of compensation : (1) Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, reported as III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=1994 (1) SCC 243; (2) R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 1995 (1) SCC 551; (3) M.C.D. v. I. Subhagwanti & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1750; and (4) Station Manager, Indian Airlines & Ors. v. Dr. Jiteswar Dhir, I (1996) CPJ 326 (NC).

On behalf of the opposite party it was argued that the above contentions of the complainant are baseless and that failure of the complainant to pass the examination has no connection with the alleged deficiency in service i.e. loss of his passport. It was also argued by the Counsel for the opposite party that the extract from the chapter on Adjustment Disorder, relied upon by the complainant, is unreliable as it clearly states that the research of the writer on the subject is incomplete and the symptoms and effects of the said Disorder cannot be conclusively ascertained and as regards the affidavit of Dr. Desai, the same cannot be relied upon as it is biased.

ON carefully going through the affidavit of Dr. N.G. Desai, we find that nowhere has Dr. Desai categorically mentioned that the complainant suffered from Adjustment Disorder as a result of stress and anxiety occasiond due to the loss of his passport. Further no details of the diagnosis and treatment of the complainant have been mentioned therein. ON the contrary, the affidavit seems to be only a narrative of what the complainant had told him. It is also pointed out that during the course of arguments it was admitted by the Counsel for the complainant that the complainant had not taken any leave during the period he alleges to have been suffering from Adjustment Disorder. ON the other hand, he had been going about his daily routine and professional work in the normal course. In case the complainant was suffering from the above said Disorder he would not have been in a position to concentrate on his professional work. As such, in the first instance it is doubtful that the complainant suffered from an Adjustment Disorder. It appears that the complainant is using his knowledge of the subject to make out a case for himself. The literature produced on record and relied upon by the complainant on Adjustment Disorder states as under : "Adjustment Disorder with work (or academic) inhibition-Adjustment dis-order with work (or academic) inhibition is reserved for individuals who have previously performed capably but who suddenly are unable to carry out their usual tasks in response to an identified stressor. According to DSM-III-R, examples include an "inability to study and to write papers or reports". Undoubtedly cases with such symptoms do appear, but whether they present without an accompanying major psychiatric disorder (such as major depression or an anxiety disorder, specifically a phobia) is not established and doubtful to this writer."

Treatment "Data dealing with various psychiatric interventions in Adjustment Disorders are not available. However, these Disorders are expected to remit after the stressor ceases." (Emphasis supplied)

THUS even the writer is unsure whether the inability to write papers is one of the effects of Adjustment Disorder or not and whether the same is also accompanied by other major symptoms. It is also stated that the complete data on the said Disorder is not available. Further it is also mentioned that the Disorder is expected to remit when the stressor ceases. In the present case, the stressor of the complainant ceased as soon as he received his duplicate passport i.e. 18.3.1994 and was assured of being able to travel on time. Therefore in view of the above discussion it cannot be presumed that the complainant was suffering from the effects of the Disorder till the date of the exam, i.e. 22.3.1994, resulting in his failing in the same. It is further contended by the complainant that the complainant had to run around to obtain duplicate passport and wasted the time which was to be utilised by him to go through his research work and study for the examination and as such he failed in the same. The said contention of the complainant is also not tenable in view of the fact that if the success in the said examination was of such importance to the complainant, he would have prepared for it much earlier and would not have set aside last few days before his journey to Hong Kong for the said purpose. Further the complainant was well aware that about a week to ten days before the journey he would be busy in obtaining Visa for his journey and making arrangements for the same and, therefore, would have no time for studying for the examination. There is also no guarantee that in normal circumstances the complainant would have definitely passed the said examination and, as such, the complainant''s claim for the cost of going to Hong Kong and back is not justifiable. From the above discussion it is clear that the complaint cannot lay the blame for his failure, at the door of the opposite party and it cannot be concluded that the trip of the complainant was wasted due to the alleged negligence of the opposite party.

The complainant has also claimed Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of loss of salary of a likely job in Bahrain. Again, it is entirely hypothetical that had the complainant passed in the examination and got the diploma in Dermatopathology, he would have got a job in Bahrain and have also got a salary as claimed. Compensation cannot be awarded for imaginary losses, without any sound basis. The complainant is also claiming cost of travel to London and back as well as expenses for board and lodging for three days or in the alternative Rs. 80,000/-, on account of the fact that he would have to travel to London in March, 1995 for appearing in the same examination. The said claim of the complainant is also not sustainable as it is an admitted fact by the complainant that he did not visit London in March, 1995 or any time thereafter to appear for the alleged examination.

FURTHER the decisions relied upon by the complainant in support of his claims for compensation are entirely distinguishable on facts and as such are of no help to the complainant. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any merit in the present complaint. The same, is dismissed accordingly. There is, however, no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.