RAMPRASAD vs HARI PRASAD

COMPLAINANT No. 1 is the husband of complainant No. 2. COMPLAINANT Nos. 3 and 4 are their minor sons. They are residents of Memphis, in U.S.A.

COMPLAINANTS purchased air tickets for their journey by Gulf Air from U.S.A. to India on 1.7.1991 and for their return journey from India to U.S.A. commencing on 29.7.91 from one Mrs. Prabha Marvada at Memphis. This, Mrs. Prabha Marvada was originally made by the complainant as opposite party No. 4 but subsequently her name was deleted by the complainants. The complainants travelled to India by Gulf Air under those tickets on 1.7.1991 but it is the case of the complainants that their return journey which was to commence on 29.7.1991, the opposite party failed to make arrangements for their return journey by Gulf Air on 29.7.1991. Thereby the opposite parties committed deficiency of service in not arranging for their return journey by Gulf Air flight on 29.7.1991. The complainants further averred that their return journey tickets by Gulf Air for the journey commencing on 29.7.1991 were confirmed tickets. The material averments in the complaint in this regard read as under: "The complainants submit that for the purpose of coming to Bangalore, they had purchased their air tickets through one Mrs. Prabha Marvada, the regular correspondent of Gulf Airline, having her residence at Memphis, U.S.A. and the complainants had purchased their air tickets, far to and from U.S.A. on 1.7.1991 and with a definite return confirmed airtickets dated 29.7.1991 paying a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Indian currency value) for airtickets for their return journey to U.S.A. on 29.7.1991 from Bangalore. The said Mrs. Prabha Marvada, had purchased the tickets of the complainants through Gulf Airlines, Memphis, U.S.A. and the same has been negotiated through their Bangalore authorised agents, Respondent No. 1 in collusion with their counter part at Bombay."

Complainants nextly averred that O.P. No. 1 who is the authorised manager of Gulf Airline at Bangalore, failed to make necessary arrangements even on repeated requests for their return journey by Gulf Air flight on 29.7.1991 from India to U.S.A.

The complainants further averred that as the opposite parties failed to arrange for their return journey on 29.7.1991, the complainants were obliged to take fresh tickets by Air India from Madras to U.S.A. and travelled from Madras on 3.8.1991. The complainants averred that by this deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, they suffered loss by incurring additional expenditure for buying fresh tickets and on other counts. The complainants sought compensation of Rs. 3,66,000/- on various counts from the opposite parties.

OPPOSITE party No. 2 filed statement of objections and disputed the allegations made by the complainants in the complaint. OPPOSITE Party No. 2, averred that the two return journey tickets were confirmed tickets, they were of complainant Nos. 2 and 4 as per Exs. C-l and C-2, other two tickets that is of complainant Nos. 1 and 3, as per Exs. C-3 and C-4 were unconfirmed return journey tickets, journey commencing from Bombay. The return journey tickets of complainants No. 1 and 3 were confirmed tickets for travel from Bombay to London on their onward journey but unconfirmed from London to Washington. They had been wait listed on London- Washington Sector. Their return journey was not confirmed and was subject to availability of seats. Opposite party No. 2, further averred that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint as no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission nor does opposite party No. 2 carry on any business within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

OPPOSITE party No. 2 on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed. During enquiry, complainant No. 1, filed his affidavit and got Exs. C-l to C-4 return journey air tickets and Exs. C-5 to C-7 the return journey tickets purchased by him afresh for his journey from Madras to U.S.A. and Exs. C-8 to C-11 -telephone bills marked in evidence. Complainants have also produced affidavit of Smt. Prabha Marvada and their Advocate, Sri Sharalchandra. Opposite party No. 2 produced affidavit of Opposite party No. 1 - Sri Hari Prasad. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties.

HAVING regard to the averments of the parties in the pleadings and submissions made by them, the points that arise for our consideration are: (a) Whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try and dispose of the complaint? (b) Whether opposite party No. 2 committed any deficiency in service and if so to what amount of compensation the complainants are entitled to?

REGARDING Point(a): Exs. C-l to C-4 are Gulf Air Tickets purchased by the complainants in Memphis, U.S.A. The tickets show that they are from Memphis, U.S.A., to Bombay via Bahrain. The return journey is from Bombay to Washington via Abudhabhi and London. It is clear from this that this Commission at Bangalore gets no jurisdiction to try this complaint. The complainants further averred that from Bombay, they came over to their native place at Bangalore, made efforts to secure confirmation for return journey through opposite party No. 1 Sri Hari Prasad, authorised Manager of Gulf Air. The complainant has in this regard, in his complaint, has averred thus ; "the complainants submit that after completing their work at Bangalore, they approached the local authorised agent at Bangalore, (Respondent. No. 1) well in advance i. e., before 29.7.1991, in fact 3 days earlier to their date of departure, to confirm the date and time of their journey to U.S.A. from Bangalore, on 29.7.91. The local agent, though promised to make arrangements did not do so and went on giving some blame excuses as saying that due to the breakdown of communication, he is not able to contract his counter part at Bombay and he would do it well within time. The complainants were in contract touch with the local agent, every day right from 26.7.1991 to have their journey fixed as per Schedule. But the local agent, did not make any definite arrangement, but postponed the issue even upto 29.7.1991 and ultimately on 29.7.1991 also he miserably failed to make any arrangements for the return journey of the complainants under the confirmed value paid return air tickets."

Complainant No. 1, in his affidavit on this aspect of the matter, averred thus: "Mr. Hari prasad, was able to confirm my journey arrangements only to me and to my wife and he did not make any arrangement for my young children to travel along with me. For this purpose, I had to call on him almost every day, and he was assuring me that he would arrange and I should not worry about it. Believing his assurances, I kept quiet till the last day of my journey. Ultimately, the said Mr. Hari Prasad, on the last day of my journey i.e., on 29.7.1991, declined to make arrangements for my children and due to his inability, I had to cancel my journey and I had to over stay in Bangalore, only."

THESE averments would go to show that complainant No. 1 approached opposite party No. 1 in Bangalore, in the last week of July 1991 for securing confirmation for their return journey from Bombay to Washington on 29.7.1991. But opposite party No. 1 has filed his affidavit and stated that during the month of July 1991, he was employed with Jet Air Pvt. Ltd., at Mangalore. He was not at all working in Bangalore office and the complainants had not approached him at all. Having regard to this affidavit of opposite party No. 1, it becomes very difficult to accept the say of complainant No. 1 that he had approached opposite party No. 1 at Bangalore. Complainants have not placed any materia1 on record to show that opposite party No. 2 had its office at Bangalore and opposite party No. 1 was working at Bangalore for opposite party No. 2 and they had approached him. The complainants have also not placed any material on record to show that it was opposite party No. 2 who had undertaken to arrange for their journey from Bangalore to Bombay. By this fact that the tickets, as per Exs. C-l to C-4 were purchased at Memphis in U.S.A. from Memphis to Bombay and their return journey was also to commence from Bombay to Washington on 29.7.1991. This Commission at Bangalore, gets no jurisdiction to try this complaint as no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this State Commission. Hence point (a) is accordingly answered against the complainant.

REGARDING point (b): In view of our finding on point (a) holding that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint, we do not find it necessary to record any finding on point (b). ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed. _______________