M.V.BHASKARA RAU vs P.DAYAKARA REDDY

THE un-successful second opposite party is the appellant in FA 682/1998 and the complainant who has partly succeeded in the complaint is the appellant in FA 763/1998.

THE facts in brief are that the second opposite party is the authorised agent of the third opposite party, and the first opposite party is the agent of the second opposite party, and the complainant''s son, P. Anil Kumar was proceeding to USA for higher studies in New Orleans University. He purchased an air travel ticket from the second opposite party, and through the first opposite party at Nellore which was O.K. Ticket from Madras to Bombay, from Bombay to New York and from New York to New Orleans by paying Rs. 36,095/-, the ticket bearing No. 098 441735440 50 dated 24.7.1997 towards reservation for flight No. 477 from Madras to Bombay on 10.8.1997, and flight No. A1 III from Bombay to New York on 11.8.1997 and flight No. TW 709 V from New York to New Orleans on 11.8.1997. When the complainant and his son reached Madras Air Port on 10.8.1997 to take the flight, the authorities of the third opposite party informed them that the ticket was confirmed only from Madras to Bombay and it has no confirmation further and that there is no accommodation till the end of August 1997. As his son had to join the University on 18.8.1997, he secured alternative accommodation in the executive class by paying extra amount of Rs. 14,064/- upto New York and after reaching New York, he stayed in a lodge during the night of 11.8.1997, and then went to New Orleans by road covering a distance of 2,500/- kms. The grievance of the complainant is that he and his son underwent mental agony and tension to collect the money and to pay for the road journey. The complainant claimed for refund of Rs. 14,064/- paid for the executive class accommodation, Rs. 8,000/- said to have been paid by his son for the road journey, Rs. 2,000/- for lodging and boarding in New York, Rs. 3,000/- spent for phone calls, and Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and suffering.

The first opposite party filed a counter alleging that he is only an employee under Sri Sai International Travels, Nellore and it was Sri Sai International Travels which received the amount from the complainant and bought the ticket for his son Sunil Kumar from the second opposite party and so he has nothing to do with the confirmation of the accommodation and hence the complaint is not maintainable against him.

THE second opposite party filed a counter alleging that the District Forum at Nellore has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and the complainant is not a consumer as it was his son Sunil Kumar who is the aggrieved person and not he, and that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party. It is further alleged that it is the practice of all International Airlines to book 15 to 20% seats over and above the accommodation for foreign travel taking into consideration of last minute conciliation or "No show". It is also further alleged that as per the rules, the passenger should report at the Airport three hours before the scheduled departure. But, in this case, the complainant and his son reported just 80 minutes earlier though he was specifically instructed, and further he did not contact the second opposite party officers either at Chennai or in Bombay in order to make alternate arrangements. He might have purchased executive class tickets on his own volition to enjoy more comforts in the journey. The third opposite party also filed his written version with similar pleas and further pleaded that it is fault of the travel agent who mentioned O.K. status on the ticket.

BASING on these pleadings and the evidence adduced, the District Forum framed appropriate point for consideration, allowed the complaint in part and directed the 2nd opposite party to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and dismissed the complaint against the 1st and third opposite parties. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded the complainant preferred F.A. 763/1998 and aggrieved by the said Order, the second opposite party preferred F.A. 682/1998. The point for consideration is, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so, to what extent.

THE facts which are not in dispute are that the complainant''s son purchased a ticket to go to New Orleans on 24.7.1997 for his journey from Madras to Bombay on 10.8.1997 and from Bombay to New York on 11.8.1997 and from New York to New Orleans on 11.8.1997. THE complainant alleges that when he and his son reached Madras Airport on 10.8.1997 to take the flight, the authorities of the third opposite party informed them that no accommodation from Bombay to New York is available till the end of August 1997. As the son of the complainant has to join the New Orleans University on 18.8.1997, he secured alternative accommodation in the executive class by paying extra amount of Rs. 14,064/- up to New York. THE complainant alleges after reaching New York to New Orleans he travelled by road by hiring a taxi, a distance of 2,500/- kms. by spending an amount of Rs. 8,000/-. THE complainant also further alleges that his son stayed in a hotel in New York by spending Rs. 2,000/- and spent Rs. 3,000/- towards telephone bills.

THE claim of the complainant towards taxi charges for travelling by road from New York to New Orleans, for the phone calls of Rs. 3,000/-, and for the hotel charges of Rs. 2,000/- must be disallowed at the threshold as not even a scrap paper was filed evidencing the expenditure incurred by him. With regard to the difference of fare of Rs. 14,064/- said to have been incurred by him for purchasing Executive Class ticket, the District Forum held that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party and awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on this account.

The second opposite party has specifically stated in its written version that accommodation was available from New Yok to New Orleans by Air and when the complainant''s son has not utilised it he cannot claim Rs. 8,000/-. Even if the version of the complainant is to be accepted, he would not be entitled for Rs. 10,000/- as compensation as awarded by the District Forum. The National Commission in Managing Director, Air India v. B. Vijay Kumar, II (1995) CPJ 7 (NC) in similar circumstances held as follows : "The loss suffered by the complainant as a result of the said wrongful denial of the seat in the economy class was only that he had to expend a sum of Rs. 28,000/- by way of excess fare. For this, he can be awarded only a token compensation. There was no justification, whatever, for the direction given by the District Forum that Air India should pay a sum of Rs. 28,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation for such inconvenience. In our opinion, the said fixation of the quantum of compensation effected by the District Forum was wholly arbitrary and it should not have been upheld by the State Commission. We hold that it will be reasonable to fix compensation payable to the complainant for the inconvenience suffered by him at Rs. 2,500/-."

COMING to the facts of this case, basing on the decision it must be held that if the complainant is entitled for any damages, it should be limited only to Rs. 1,000/- as he has spent only Rs. 14,064/-. With regard to the question of jurisdiction which was raised by the second and third opposite parties, the ticket was issued by the second opposite party whose head office is situated at Madras.

THE complainant alleges that he has purchased ticket from the first opposite party''s Travel Agent at Nellore. THE second opposite party claims that the District Forum at Nellore has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is not in dispute that the first opposite party is not the branch office of the second opposite party. THE first opposite party is only a travel agent. In J.P. Singh v. British Airways, II (1998) CPJ 432, the Punjab State Commission held as follows : "The present case does not fall under Clause ''C'' of Section 11(2) of the C.P. Act as no cause of action much less part thereto has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission i.e., in the State of Punjab. The ticket for the journey was purchased at Bombay and the journey was performed from London to Delhi. None of the facts, as alleged, indicates any cause of action having occurred at Ludhiana."

It is also further held as : "Since the opposite party is not having any branch office at Ludhiana, Clause (a), as stated, will not be applicable. The main business of the opposite party is to run the airways. For that they have to sell the travel tickets. Either they are sold in their own offices, branch offices or through sales agents. If the tickets are sold through sales agents, it cannot be said that the opposite party is carrying on business in each and every corner of the country. Sales Agents may be getting commission on purchase of the tickets from British Airways and thereafter selling the same to the public at their own. It cannot be said that they are doing business for British Airways rather they will be doing their own business of running the travel agencies. The matter can be looked into from another angle. The manufacturers of the goods are carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing of their goods are carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing of their goods but at the time of marketing they have to send the goods to the distributors and ultimately to the retailers. It cannot be said that the distributors or retailers are doing manufacturer''s business rather they would be doing their own business getting their margin of profits or commission as the case may be. Simply because marketable commodities of companies are available in the shops, it cannot be said that such shops of the retailers are either branch offices of the manufacturers or are places of business where the manufacturers are carrying on their business in order to bestow territorial jurisdiction on the Fora established under the Act. For the reasons recorded above, it is held that since neither the opposite party is having Head Office or any branch office in the State of Punjab nor the opposite party is carrying on business in the State of Punjab and that no cause of action having occurred within the State of Punjab, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint."

We agree with the observation of the Commission and hold that the District Forum, Nellore has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the second opposite party has no branch office at Nellore. For the reasons stated above, the appeal preferred by the second opposite party in FA 682/1998 is allowed without costs and the appeal preferred by the complainant in FA 763/1998 is dismissed without any costs. Ordered accordingly.