SRINIDHI CHIT FUNDS PRIVATE LIMITED vs Mercury Travels Limited

THE petitioner filed his complaint before the Commission on 5.3.1993 against the opposite parties for deficiency of service and seeks directions to opposite parties to pay it Rs. 5,00,000/- towards damages, loss of future profits and costs.

THE case is as follows : THE complainant wanted to organise a ''business promotion trip'' to Kathmandu in May/June, 1992 for 40 chit subscribers. It approached the opposite party No. 1 who assured that tickets for 40 persons by ''Royal Nepal Airlines'' from Delhi to Kathmandu on 28.5.1992 and return from Kathmandu to Delhi on 31.5.1992 would be arranged. On the basis of that assurance the complainant made its own arrangement for all the 40 subscribers to travel by Dakshin Express from Hyderabad to Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station (New Delhi) on 26.5.1992 and return journey from Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station to Hyderabad on 31.5.1992. However, later opposite party informed that it was not possible to get confirmed Air tickets for 40 persons on 28.5.1992 from Delhi to Kathmandu and that the reservation by Royal Nepal Airlines was available only on 29.5.1992. THE complainant had to change the whole travel plan and cancel train reservation and re-book by Dakshin Express for 27.5.1992 from Hyderabad to Delhi and return journey on 1.6.1992 from Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station to Hyderabad. THE return train reservation on 1.6.1992 was done on the ''express assurance'' of the opposite party that all the passengers would be accommodated in the return flight on 1.6.1992. It was also asked by opposite party No. 1 to be in touch with opposite party No. 2 for all return reservations. As per the plan they reached New Delhi on 29.5.1992 and the opposite party No. 2 arranged transport and took them to Indira Gandhi International Airport for a trip to Kathmandu by air. On arrival at Delhi on 29.5.1992 it informed the petitioner that the opposite party No. 2 was not able to secure return air tickets for 17 passengers on June 1 and that they had to travel on June 2 by two different flights. Therefore, confirmed return train tickets for June 1 for 40 persons had become meaningless. The representatives of opposite party, after discussion assured that train reservation would be altered from June 1 to June 2. Before leaving for Kathmandu, the complainant handed over 31 confirmed return train tickets from New Delhi to Hyderabad for 1.6.1992 for reconfirmation for 2.6.1992 and, in case it was not possible, as a precautionary measure Rs. 7,000/- was given to opposite party No. 2 (Ex. A-8) for booking return reservation for 31 passengers by Dakshin Express on 2.6.1992. The opposite party No. 2 assured to confirm train tickets by Dakshin Express for 2.6.1992 and arrange coach from Airport to Railway Station. Complainant sent a telex on 30.5.1992 to opposite party No. 2 spending Rs. 150/- (Ex. A-6) Nepal Currency for confirming the reservation by Dakshin Express on 2.6.1992 and spoke to Ashok Saldhana and K.P. Kumar (opposite party No. 2 at Delhi) on 31.5.1992 (Ex. A-5) and 1.6.1992 (Ex. A-7) which costed Rs. 168/- and Rs. 150/- (NC).

However, on their arrival at New Delhi Airport on 2.6.1992, they were shocked to learn that there was no transport arrangement for going to Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, nor any train ticket even by ordinary class by Dakshin Express. The confirmed tickets of 1.6.1992 were already cancelled and opposite party No. 2 had not even purchased unreserved train tickets for 2.6.1992. Since it was a business promotion trip it was supposed to be a pleasant trip but due to the bungling of opposite parties it meant loss of business for the complainant apart from harassment by opposite party No. 2 at Delhi. Loss incurred by it was about Rs. 5,00,000/- including cost of travel and damage due to bad publicity. Therefore, there was clear deficiency in not, (a) securing return train reservation from New Delhi on June 2, 1992, and (b) not arranging transport from Indira Gandhi International Airport to Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station at Delhi. On 27.6.1992 (Ex. A-1) it wrote to the opposite party No. 1 and subsequently gave a legal notice on 15.6.1992 (Ex. A-3). There was no reply to the legal notice. Hence, it filed a complaint before the State Commission on 5.3.1993 against the opposite party and claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation including Rs. 1,60,000/- cost of the whole trip, and Rs. 4,00,000/- towards damages due to adverse publicity and costs.

SRI S.R. Subramanian, Branch Manager, M/s. Mercury Travels in his counter stated that Mr. R.K. Bang approached opposite party No. 1 in May, 1992 for arranging a group travel for certain passengers from Delhi to Kathmandu and for hotel accommodation of 3 nights at Kathmandu. The final list of 40 passengers was given on 21.5.1992 to opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 informed that due to short notice it would be possible to get confirmed tickets for 40 people on the flight from Delhi to Kathmandu by RNA on 29.5.1992 and return on 1.6.1992. The return journey from Kathmandu to Delhi could not be confirmed and was on "request" (Ex. B-2) and opposite party No. 1 made necessary endorsement on the tickets accordingly. Opposite party also did reservation at Hotel Narayani for 3 nights for the group. The complainant has made its own arrangement for travel by train from Hyderabad to Delhi on 26.5.1992 and back by Dakshin Express. As agreed, opposite party No. 1 made arrangement for receiving the group at Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station on arrival at Delhi on 29.5.1992 and coach for travel to Indira Gandhi International Airport which was complied by opposite party No. 2. It denied that the complainant was instructed to contact opposite party No. 2 in Delhi for all reconfirmations with regard to the group''s return journey and that it would secure reservations for 17 passengers on 2.6.1992 from Kathmandu to Delhi. The group was seen-off by opposite party No. 2 at Indira Gandhi International Airport, but due to technical snag the flight on 29.5.1992 was cancelled and the entire group was provided hotel accommodation, transfer, food etc., at airlines'' cost till they left for Kathmandu on 30.5.1992. For return journey, due to one day delay in departure for Kathmandu, the complainant gave to opposite party No. 2 Rs. 7,000/- and confirmed train tickets of 1.6.1992 for postponement and rebooking for 2.6.1992. Representatives of opposite party No. 2 informed that as it was peak season it would be difficult to confirm postponed tickets at such a short notice. Opposite party''s role was confined to providing assistance in securing railway reservations, ''subject to the availability of accommodation''. Rs. 7,000/- was given towards purchase of fresh Railway Tickets in the event of Railways refusing to endorse changed date on the tickets. On the same day opposite party No. 2 went to the station, cancelled the confirmed tickets of 1.6.1992 and tried to purchase the tickets for 2.6.1992. However, he was informed that there was no reservation available and even the RAC (Reservation Against Cancellation) and Waiting List were over since it was a very short notice. Therefore, opposite party No. 2 could not book the tickets as requested by the complainant. No transport was arranged at the Airport as the return tickets from Kathmandu to New Delhi were not confirmed and opposite party No. 2 was not informed about the time of their arrival. Moreover, the opposite party No. 2 offered to arrange for the coach and book the return train tickets as a gesture of goodwill for which no consideration was paid. The train bookings were done by the complainant itself and opposite parties could not be held responsible for any inconvenience caused to the complainant due to non-reservation of tickets on 2.6.1992. The opposite party No. 2 returned Rs. 7,000/- alongwith the cancelled railway tickets. It is emphatically denied by opposite party No. 1 that, (a) the opposite party No. 2, had agreed to secure railway reservations by Dakshin Express from Delhi to Hyderabad, for the 2nd of June, 1992, for 31 passengers, and (b) to arrange travel by coach from Indira Gandhi International Airport to Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, as alleged. Complainant was informed that it would have to make its own arrangement for confirming the return tickets from Kathmandu to Delhi as it was on ''request'', hence there was no deficiency in service. Opposite parties denied that the complainants were entitled to Rs. 5,00,000/- from opposite parties due to deficiency in service and adverse publicity. On the other hand it requested for award of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensatory costs under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE points to be considered are : Whether the opposite parties were responsible for confirming train journeys on 2.6.1992 for 31 passengers ? Whether the opposite party No. 2 should have arranged coach at Indira Gandhi International Airport for passengers returning from Kathmandu on 2.6.1992 and, if so, was there any deficiency of service and was it required to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as claimed by the complainant ? Opposite party No. 1 filed counter in the form of affidavit on 27.8.1993 which was adopted by opposite party No. 2. Reply affidavit was filed by the complainant on 8.9.1994, almost reiterating the original complaint, giving particulars of their expenses in Nepal including the expenses of Telex Message, Telephone Calls etc., and claiming Rs. 5,00,000/- to be paid by the opposite party as tabled below : 1. 30.3.1992 Telex Message Rs. 100.00 Rs. 150.00 (Approximately) (Nepali) 2. 31.5.1992 Telephone Rs. 100.00 Rs. 168.00 (Approximately) (Nepali) 3. 1.6.1992 Telephone Rs. 100.00 Rs. 150.00 (Approximately) (Nepali) 4. Typing, Postage etc. Rs. 200.00 5. Transport from Rs. 1,000.00 airport to railway station for the party 6. Cancellation fee Rs. 1,000.00 for train tickets booked for 1.6.1992. 7. Damages to business reputation Rs. 3,37,500.00 8. Cost of the trip Rs. 1,60,000.00 Total : Rs. 5,00,000.00 In the reply affidavit complainant mentioned for the first time that on the 29th of May, 1992 there was a technical snag in the Royal Nepal Airlines Flight from Delhi to Kathmandu and the flight had to be abandoned and that the whole group, therefore, travelled on 30th May, 1992. The opposite party was requested to change all the tickets to 2nd June and was further instructed not to cancel the train tickets for 1st June till the tickets for 2nd were confirmed. "The opposite party was also informed that in case the confirmed tickets could not be obtained for 2nd the tour party would cut short their stay in Nepal by one day and return on 1st June itself". After reaching Nepal the complainant again informed the opposite party to get the train tickets for 2nd June confirmed.

ON behalf of the complainant Exs. A-1 to A-7 were marked. The opposite party also filed 2 Exhibits marked as Exs. B-1 and B-2.

EX. A-1 dated 27.6.1992 is the letter written by complainant to opposite party No. 1 requesting, (a) for cancellation of RNA tickets and refund since 5 passengers could not travel and Stick Travels (P) Ltd., refused to refund, (b) to send detailed bill since only ad hoc amount was paid. EXs. A-2 and A-4 are the acknowledgement receipts. EX. A-3 is the legal notice dated 15.6.1992. EXs. A-5, A-6 and A-7 are Hotel Narayani receipts towards telephone and telex charges. EX. A-7 the telex message also contains request for railway reservations and opposite parties request for trip clearance to travel agency in Kathmandu. EX. A-8 is receipt for Rs. 7,000/- by opposite party No. 2 for purchase of train tickets for 31 passengers of June 2, 1992 by Dakshin EXpress from Delhi to Hyderabad. Ex. B-1 are the plane tickets from Delhi to Kathmandu and back. Ex. B-2 are the receipts "towards package for Delhi-Kathmandu/Kathmandu-Delhi including airfare, accommodation and communication" for various passengers.

Mr. S. Ravi represented the complainant and the opposite parties were represented by Mr. M. Shankaranarayana. The matter was posted for argument on 24.7.1998 on the request of Mr. S. Ravi, Counsel for the complainant. Counsel for the complainant subsequently did not appear before this Commission. On 4.10.1999 the office was asked to inform Mr. S. Ravi that the CD was posted for dismissal/disposal on 4.10.1999. Counsel for the complainant did not appear on 4.10.1999. Docket noting shows : "Counsel for the complainant not present. No representation on his behalf, inspite of the C.D. being posted for dismissal/disposal. Heard Mr. M. Shankar Narayana, appearing for the opposite parties. Reserved for judgment."

IT is not disputed by both that opposite party No. 1 was asked to arrange a trip for 40 persons from Delhi to Kathmandu and back by Royal Nepal Airlines, in the month of May, 1992. IT is also accepted that the train reservations were done by the complainant itself by Dakshin Express on 26.5.1992 from Hyderabad and return journey on 31.5.1992 from New Delhi. However, according to the complainant it had to cancel the reservation by train on 26.5.1992 on the request of the opposite party No. 1 since it could provide confirmed tickets by Royal Nepal Airlines from Delhi to Kathmandu on 29.5.1992 and that, it was not available on 28.5.1992. Accordingly it had to change its booking from Hyderabad to Delhi and return from Delhi to Hyderabad on 27.5.1992 and 1.6.1992 respectively. According to opposite party No. 1 the confirmed list of passengers by the complainant was given on 21.5.1992 and in such a short notice it could confirm 40 passengers on Delhi-Kathmandu flight on 29.5.1992 but could not confirm reservation for all the passengers on the return journey on 2.6.1992 by the same flight. We find from the above discussion that the opposite party No. 1 had only taken responsibility for booking the air tickets by Royal Nepal Air-lines from New Delhi to Kathmandu and back (B-2). Since it had branches all over India transport was arranged for passengers from Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station to Indira Gandhi International Airport on payment by opposite party No. 2, on request. No consideration was paid for the same. The booking from train journey from Hyderabad to New Delhi and back was done by the complainant itself and if it had to cancel the same due to non-availability of air ticket on a particular date, the opposite party could not be held responsible for the same. No assurance was given by the opposite party No. 1 that tickets by Royal Nepal Airlines would be available with one week notice. However they could confirm the same on 29.5.1992 instead of 28.5.1992 as requested. The flight from Delhi could not take-off on 29.5.1992 due to some technical snag for which action the opposite party No. 1 could not be held responsible, however, the Airlines arranged for their boarding and lodging and as such on that account there was no complaint because they ultimately left New Delhi on 30.5.1992. The return tickets had to be reconfirmed for 2.6.1992 from Kathmandu to New Delhi and on request they were confirmed and they reached New Delhi. In view of the earlier booking the return train tickets were booked for 1.6.1992 and before leaving for Kathmandu on 30.5.1992, complainant requested opposite party No. 2 to postpone confirmed train tickets of June 1st and get them endorsed for June 2nd and also paid Rs. 7,000/- to opposite party No. 2 in case endorsement was not possible and fresh tickets had to be bought. Opposite party No. 2 cancelled the confirmed tickets of 1.6.1992 but since no tickets were available for 2.6.1992 at such a short notice in the peak season it could not oblige the complainant by purchasing the tickets for 2.6.1992. The return tickets from Kathmandu to New Delhi were on ''request'' (Ex. B-1) as such the time of arrival was not confirmed, therefore, the transport at the Airport was not arranged and no consideration was paid for the same. The complainant must have faced lot of hardship on arrival at New Delhi on learning that there were no confirmed tickets for 31 passengers from New Delhi to Hyderabad, however the opposite party No. 2 could not be blamed for it because opposite party No. 2 cancelled the confirmed tickets and its representative was personally present at the Airport to hand over Rs. 7,000/- paid to him and also cancelled train tickets. So far as three days booking at hotel in Kathmandu was concerned the opposite party had fulfilled its obligation. Therefore, we find that the complainant in the original complaint had mentioned that it asked the opposite party to book tickets for air travel from Delhi to Kathmandu and back and the train tickets from Hyderabad to Delhi and back was done by the complainant. Opposite party No. 1 asked opposite party No. 2 as its agent to receive the complainant at Delhi and arrange transport from Railway Station to Airport and help in anyway possible. But there was no contract or any consideration paid for such service. In fact, after returning to Hyderabad complainant in its first letter (Ex. A-1) to opposite party, requested opposite party to help in cancelling and getting refund for five tickets since the ticket holders could not travel and asked for the bill towards hotel stay at Kathmandu and transfer and there was no complaint about deficiency in service.

IN the result the complaint is dismissed. Both parties will bear their costs. Complaint dismissed.