ONKAR TRAVELS vs Manjit Singh

VIDE this order of ours, which is being delivered in Appeal Case No. 119 of 2001, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid two appeals i.e. Appeal Nos. 119 and 238 both of 2001 filed against one and the same dated 17.1.2001 passed by the Dispute Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-I) in Complaint Case No. 229 of 1997, Sh. Manjit Singh Dhooria v. Commercial Manager, Aeroflot and Others.

THE complainant, Sh. Manjit Singh Dhooria was to visit Moscow for a short assignment of World Bank, from 18.11.1996 to 22.11.1996. On 1.11.1996 the complainant contacted M/s. Khanna Enterprises/O.P. No. 3 and paid Rs. 16,500/- for booking an air ticket from Delhi to Moscow and back. O.P. No. 3 gave this booking to M/s. Onkar Travels/O.P. No. 2, who are the authorised agents for Aeroflot in Chandigarh. On 3.11.1996, reservation was confirmed and a ticket bearing No. 5554124223286 was issued to the complainant by O.P. No. 2 with dates of outward and inward journey as 16.11.1996 and 25.11.1996 respectively, by flights No. SU 536 and SU 535. THE complainant travelled by taxi from Chandigarh to Delhi and checked in at the Delhi Airport at 0400 a.m. on 16.11.1996. He was told by the lady at the booking counter of Airport that his name did not figure in the list of confirmed passengers for the flight to Moscow. When contacted by the complainant, Aeroflot duty officer, Mr. Sanjay was surprised to see ''OK'' status on the air ticket. He was, however, not able to accommodate the complainant in the flight and the complainant was also refused hotel booking by the Airline as his name did not figure in the list of confirmed passengers of the Airline. Mr. Sanjay aforesaid, however, endorsed the ticket with following remark: "PAX reported at check in at 0400 a.m. but not accepted as not listed" (Annexure A-1 refers). The Airline, however, rescheduled the journey of the complainant on the same air ticket for outward journey on 19.11.1996 and inward journey on 27.11.1996. In view of the situation created the complainant came back to Chandigarh by taxi and again went back to Delhi by taxi on 18.11.1996 to catch the flight on 19.11.1996. The complainant undertook the air journey as per the revised schedule. For the additional expenditure incurred and for the harassment/inconvenience and degradation caused the complainant lodged the complaint and prayed for a compensation amounting to Rs. 2,48,465/-.

In support of his version, the complainant put on record his duly sworn affidavit. On behalf of the O.Ps., sworn affidavits by O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 were brought on record, whereas O.P. No. 1 initially put in appearance but did not appear subsequently and was hence proceeded against ex parte.

HAVING heard the learned Counsels for the parties and after perusing record on file the learned District Forum-I did not find the argument of O.P. No. 2, that the complainant had arrived late at the Airport for ''check in'' and that seat booked for him was given to somebody else, convincing enough particularly in the light of the written note of Mr. Sanjay on the air ticket saying, "PAX reported at check in at 0400 a.m. but not accepted as not listed." The District Forum-I held the view that the complainant reported for ''check in'' on time on 16.11.1996 but was denied air travel as his name did not figure in the Airline''s list of confirmed passengers, in spite of having been given a ticket with ''OK'' status by O.P. No. 2. The District Forum-I held O.P. No. 1/Aeroflot the airline, O.P. No. 2/Onkar Travels who issued the ticket with ''OK'' status and O.P. No. 3/M/s. Khanna Enterprises, who sold the ticket to the complainant deficient in service and jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for extra expenditure incurred by him as well as for harassment/inconvenience and degradation caused to the complainant. The District Forum-I, therefore, ordered payment of Rs. 4,600/- for the taxi fare for the additional tax trip from Chandigarh to Delhi and Rs. 12,000/- for harrassment/inconveience/degradation. O.P. No. 2/Onkar Travels and O.P. No. 3/M/s. Khanna felt aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum-I and filed separate appeals bearing Nos. 119 and 238, both of 2001 respectively. M/s. Khanna Enterprises is respondent No. 2 in appeal Case No. 119 of 2001 whereas in the appeal filed by M/s. Khanna Enterprises, M/s. Onkar Travels has been impleaded as respondent No. 3 and M/s. Aeroflot, New Delhi as respondent No. 2. Mr. Manjit Singh Dhooria/complainant has been impleaded as respondent No. 1 in both the appeals. Being against the same order both these appeals were clubbed for hearing. Notices of appeals were sent to respondents and record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-I.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1/complainant, Mr. Balbir Singh Malhi, Advocate and Mr. G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2/M/s. Khanna Enterprises. Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the appellant argued that the District Forum-I had erred in construing Annexure A-2 of the complaint as confirmation of the air ticket whereas it merely conveys OK for passage of the fax message. This argument looses all force and becomes irrelevant in light of the averment in the sworn affidavit given by the O.P. No. 2/appellant that respondent No. 1/complainant had been given a confirmed ticket in which status ''OK'' was mentioned after online confirmation from O.P. No. 1/Aeroflot and perusal of the original Air ticket produced by the complainant in the Commission in which status of ticket is clearly marked ''OK'' ticket for travel dates as 16.11.1996 and 25.11.1996. Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the appellant, M/s. Onkar Travels further argued that authentication on the air ticket bore no designation/seal of appropriate authority and the same could have been done by the complainant himself. We feel that this is totally speculative in nature particularly when this aspect of the complainant''s affidavit was neither rebutted nor contradicted. Moreover, rescheduling of the journey of the complainant on the same ticket lends credence to the version of the complainant and we, therefore, accept his version that he reported on time for the ''check in'' i.e. at 0400 a.m. on 16.11.1996.

MR. G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent No. 2/M/s. Khanna Enterprises strenuously argued that the complainant should have checked the status of his ticket from the Airline prior to his departure from Chandigarh. However, when asked to indicate the term/condition which specified such a confirmation to be obtained by the passenger, the learned Counsel was unable to do so.

HAVING heard the learned Counsels for the parties and scrutiny of the record, we find that the District Forum-I was absolutely right in holding the view that O.Ps. had given the complainant an air ticket from Delhi to Moscow and back with status as ''OK'' for onward journey on 16.11.1996 and return journey on 25.11.1996 but he was refused travel on this ticket on the planned dates. We fully agree with this view of the District Forum-I and also agree with their judgment holding all the O.Ps. jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for the extra expenditure he had to incur due to change in the schedule of his journey and for harassment/inconvenience/degradation caused to him due to deficiency in service by the O.Ps. Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the appellant/ M/s. Onkar Travels submitted that the compensation awarded by the District Forum-I for harassment/inconvenience is on the higher side. Though we agree with the District Forum''s view that there is no mathematical yardstick for measuring compensation on that count yet we feel that in view of the fact that the revised schedule of journey had no adverse impact on the assignment of the complainant with the World Bank and that he was able to come back to his home in Chandigarh on 16.11.1996, a more lenient view in this regard can be taken and we order that compensation of Rs. 8,000/- on this count would meet the ends of justice and is accordingly reduced from Rs. 12,000/- awarded by the District Forum-I. Subject to this modification, we uphold the impugned order of the District Forum-I. A copy of this order be placed on the file of Appeal No. 238 of 2001. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeal partly allowed.