STIC TRAVELS LTD. vs HARCHARAN SINGH

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 8.5.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II] in Complaint Case No. 399 of 1997. The respondent Shri Harcharan Singh filed the said complaint case against the appellant - Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd. located at SCO No. 40-41, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,00,360/- for deficiency in service on the part of the appellant - Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd.

THE relevant facts of the case may be mentioned as under : Shri Sukhpal Singh son of the respondent/complainant Shri Harcharan Singh was under-going MBBS Degree Course at Kieve, Capital of Ukraine formerly part of USSR. Shri Harcharan Singh was providing financial assistance to his son Shri Sukhpal Singh who was solely dependent on him. Shri Sukhpal Singh came to India to visit his parents during his holidays in July, 1997 and he was due to resume his studies at Kieve on 1.9.1997. The respondent/complainant contacted the appellant - Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd. for getting air ticket booked for his dependent son Shri Sukhpal Singh by Air Ukraine and paid the amount of the ticket and the charges of the opposite party amounting to Rs. 800/- for which a receipt was issued by the opposite party. A photocopy of the receipt has been placed on record as Annexure C-1. The receipt is in the name of Shri Sukhpal Singh and is for a sum of Rs. 800/- as advance. The appellant got air ticket booked by Air Ukraine for 21.8.1997. The flight was scheduled to leave Delhi at 20.10 hrs. A photocopy of the ticket has also been placed on record along with Annexure C-1. Shri Sukhpal Singh accompanied by his brother Shri Sukhcharan Singh left for Delhi by Shatabadi Express to get the flight to Kieve. Both the brothers reached I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi and when they presented the ticket for issuance of a boarding ticket, they learnt that this ticket was not confirmed. Consequently, Shri Sukhpal Singh could not take the flight and his efforts in approaching the higher authorities of the Air Ukraine to accommodate him on the flight did not bear any fruits. It is alleged that when both the brothers were returning to Chandigarh, Shri Sukhpal Singh was involved in some accident and he sustained injuries for which he was treated at Delhi. Shri Sukhpal Singh on his return to Chandigarh informed his father Shri Harcharan Singh - respondent about his not being able to catch the flight because of the ticket being not confirmed. The respondent contacted the appellant who assured him to look into the matter and provide a confirmed ticket. It is alleged that a confirmed ticket by the same airlines was procured for 25.8.1997 showing the O.K. status and the same was handed over to the respondent/complainant. As the luck would have it, Shri Sukhpal Singh this time also could not board the said flight as he was again told that the ticket was not a confirmed ticket and there was no seat available on the said flight. Shri Sukhpal Singh had to come back to Chandigarh. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant again approached the appellant/opposite party and complained to him as to why he was being unnecessarily harassed. It is alleged that the appellant once again assured the complainant and told the complainant that it was due to some error in the computer that Shri Sukhpal Singh could not be shown as a confirmed passenger. In the third attempt, the appellant got the ticket booked for 28.8.1997 by Air Ukraine. Unluckily, on the third time also, the same story repeated and Shri Sukhpal Singh could not catch the flight due to the ticket being not confirmed. This time, it is alleged, Shri Sukhpal Singh contacted the higher authorities of Air Ukraine who informed him about a special flight being arranged which will leave Delhi on 1.9.1997 and they promised to accommodate Shri Sukhpal Singh on the special flight. The ticket held by Shri Sukhpal Singh was confirmed for the special flight leaving on 1.9.1997.

There was yet another difficulty faced by Shri Sukhpal Singh and it was of the visa expiring on 1.9.1997. Shri Sukhpal Singh had to apply for extension of visa and had to pay additional visa fees of Rs. 1,000/- and get his visa extended. Eventually, Shri Sukhpal Singh left by the special flight for Kieve.

THE complainant felt aggrieved by the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/appellant and he filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [ for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act] before the District Forum-II. THE appellant was arrayed as an opposite party which put in appearance before the District Forum and filed written reply. One of the preliminary objections raised in the written statement was about Shri Harcharan Singh being a stranger to the appellant - Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd. as the appellant had been approached by Shri Sukhpal Singh for purchasing the ticket. It was Shri Sukhpal Singh who paid the price of the ticket including the charges of the appellant Company. THE receipts were issued in the name of Shri Sukhpal Singh and the air tickets were also issued in the name of Shri Sukhpal Singh. On the basis of these allegations, it was contended that the complaint filed by Shri Harcharan Singh was not maintainable. THE other preliminary objection raised was that there was no role of the appellant Company in this case so far as the unability of Shri Sukhpal Singh to catch the flight on the basis of the ticket supplied was concerned, because the ticket had been got booked trough Aero World Travels, New Delhi who was the concerned authorised travel agent for Air Ukraine. Besides Aero World Travels, Air Ukraine was the necessary party as the airlines had to issue a confirmed ticket according to the capacity of passengers on the flight. It was thus contended that the complaint was bad for non joinder of Aero World Travels and Air Ukraine. On merits, it was contended that there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant - Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd. It was categorically denied that after the ticket was handed over by the appellant, neither Shri Sukhpal Singh nor any one on his behalf including the respondent/complainant ever approached the appellant who came to know about the plight of Shri Sukhpal Singh only after receiving copy of the complaint case. It was urged that the deficiency, if any, was on the part of the Aero World Travels and Air Ukraine. The District Forum-II held that neither Aero world Travels, New Delhi nor Air Ukraine were the necessary parties to the complaint case as the complainant had no direct dealings with these parties. It was the appellant/opposite party who had the dealing with the Aero World Travels, New Delhi and Air Ukraine and as such the complaint was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The District Forum-II repelled the preliminary objection of the appellant about the complaint being filed by an unconcerned person and recorded a categorical finding that it was the complainant Shri Harcharan Singh who provided financial assistance to his son and he paid the price of the ticket as also the charges of the appellant and as such it was Shri Harcharan Singh who had hired the services of the appellant. It was held that Shri Sukhpal Singh was the real beneficiary who was to undertake the journey. The receipt and the ticket were obviously issued in the name of Shri Sukhpal Singh because it was Shri Sukhpal Singh who was to undertake the journey but the funds were provided by the complainant Shri Harcharan Singh. On merits, it was held that the appellant - Stic Travels Limited was deficient in rendering service to the complainant/respondent. The District Forum-II consequently awarded a sum of Rs. 4,500/- as the amount spent over travel from Chandigarh to Delhi, and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as a consolidated amount as compensation for inconvenience and harassment, costs to the sons of the complainant and towards the costs of the case. A total sum of Rs. 14,500/- was ordered to be paid by the opposite party - Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order failing which the said amount would carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till payment.

THE opposite party - Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd. felt aggrieved with the order of the District Forum-II and has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the C.P. Act. THE complainant Shri Harcharan Singh has been arrayed as respondent and he has put in appearance through his Counsel. THE record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-II. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. We have carefully perused the impugned order of the District Forum-II and the record of the case. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was not an authorised travel agent for booking the air ticket by Air Ukraine. Aero World Travels, New Delhi were the authorised agent for Air Ukraine and when the appellant was approached for getting a ticket booked for Kieve by Air Ukraine, the appellant contacted Aero World Travels, New Delhi who got the air ticket booked in the name of Shri Sukhpal Singh by Air Ukraine. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the appellant was not required to render any service in this regard to Shri Sukhpal Singh or for that matter to his father Shri Harcharan Singh, the complainant. He further submitted that the deficiency, if any, was on the part of Aero World Travels and Air Ukraine. It was emphatically denied by the appellant that the appellant was ever approached by either Shri Sukhpal Singh or by his father Shri Harcharan Singh after the ticket of 21.8.1997 had been handed over to them. Regarding the preliminary objection, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the District Forum-II committed error in recording a finding that the complainant Shri Harcharan Singh was a consumer qua the appellant - Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Sukhpal Singh was only the beneficiary.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant referred to the replication filed by the complainant to the written reply filed by the appellant/opposite party. In the replication, it was specifically denied that Shri Sukhpal Singh had requested the opposite party and the opposite party procured the ticket on his request. In fact, it was the opposite party who offered and accepted the amount of Rs. 800/- in advance from the complainant in presence of his son and issued the receipt [Photocopy Annexure C-1]. THE complainant being father of Shri Sukhpal Singh has right to file the present complaint and as such the complaint is maintainable under the C.P. Act. THE District Forum-II while considering this preliminary objection referred to the specific case of the complainant wherein it was categorically alleged that the amount was spent by the complainant and the same was for the benefit of his son Shri Sukhpal Singh. It was the complainant who had hired the services of the opposite party.

THE complainant filed his affidavit and additional affidavit in support of the complaint case and deposed on oath the aforesaid averments. On behalf of the opposite party, affidavit was filed by Shri Tarlok Singh. In para 2 of the affidavit of Shri Tarlok Singh, it was admitted that the appellant had been approached though by Shri Sukhpal Singh for purchasing a ticket to Ukraine from New Delhi. Shri Sukhpal Singh, it was deposed in para 3, requested the appellant/opposite party to procure a ticket from Aero World Travels. As per the averment made in para 4 of the affidavit, the appellant/opposite party at the request of Shri Sukhpal Singh agreed to procure a ticket and in fact procured a ticket from Aero World Travels, New Delhi and handed over the same to Shri Sukhpal Singh. It may be pointed out that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement on oath of the complainant made in the affidavit as well as in the additional affidavit about his financing the trip of his son Shri Sukhpal Singh who was dependent on his father Shri Harcharan Singh. Apart from it, it is the specific case of the complainant that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 800/- for obtaining a ticket by Air Ukraine for travelling from New Delhi to Kieve. He has deposed about the presence of his son Shri Sukhpal Singh at that time. It appears that since the receipt and the ticket were issued in the name of Shri Sukhpal Singh who was to undertake the journey, the appellant is trying to take this plea that it was Shri Sukhpal Singh who had approached the appellant for getting a ticket booked. In our considered view, the District Forum-II has rightly held that the respondent/complainant was the person who had hired the service of the appellant/opposite party and paid the amount for rendering service by procuring a ticket to travel by Air Ukraine from New Delhi to Kieve. THE preliminary objection in this regard was rightly repelled by the District Forum-II. So far as the objection regarding the non-joinder of Aero World Travels and Air Ukraine is concerned, the same is clearly without any merit because the complainant never had a dealing directly either with Aero World Travels or Air Ukraine. It was the appellant/opposite party who had contacted Aero World Travels, who is said to be the authorised travel agent for Air Ukraine. THE complainant was thereafter not legally required to implead Aero World Travels or Air Ukraine as opposite parties whose services were hired by the complainant. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it is the specific case of the complainant which is supported by an affidavit as well as the three tickets, the photocopies of which have been placed on record to show clearly and categorically that the first ticket issued for the flight on 21.8.1997 was shown as O.K. ticket but Shri Sukhpal Singh could not get a seat on the said flight and the reason was that the ticket was found to be not confirmed. The evidence on record categorically shows that on two further occasions, tickets were procured by the appellant and handed over to the respondent/complainant regarding the flights leaving New Delhi for Kieve by Air Ukraine on 25.8.1997 and 28.8.1997 and on each occasion, the same was repeated and Shri Sukhpal Singh could not be accommodated on the flight due to the ticket being unconfirmed ticket. It was due to the efforts of Shri Sukhpal Singh which he made with the higher authorities of Air Ukraine that his ticket was confirmed by Air Ukraine on the special flight leaving New Delhi on 1.9.1997 and he finally left New Delhi by the said special flight on 1.9.1997. As against this there is general denial on the part of the appellant/opposite party about there being no deficiency on his part. Shri Tarlok Singh in his affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant/opposite party deposed, inter alia, as under : "...Subsequent to handing over of the ticket, the opposite party was never contacted by, or heard from, Shri Sukhpal Singh or even the complainant till the receipt of the notices of the present proceedings..."

The general denial by Shri Tarlok Singh is not sufficient to rebut the specific averment made in the affidavit and additional affidavit of the complainant which is supported by the photocopies of the tickets issued for 25.8.1997 and 28.8.1997.

AFTER carefully considering the material on record, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the District Forum-II that the appellant/opposite party was deficient in rendering service which had been hired by the complainant and due to the deficiency in service, Shri Sukhpal Singh son of the complainant Shri Harcharan Singh had to undergo physical and mental harassment and Shri Sukhpal Singh who had accompanied his brother Shri Sukhcharan Singh also underwent harassment and being physically hurt in the accident in which he was involved at Delhi. The District Forum-II has assessed the amount spent by the sons of the complainant to travel from Chandigarh to New Delhi on 21st, 25th and 28th of September, 1997 at a sum of Rs. 4,500/- by assessing the average expenses per visit of Rs. 1,500/- which cannot be in any way unreasonable or excessive. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded as a consolidated sum on account of compensation for harassment and inconvenience as well as the costs of case, appears to be quite just, proper and adequate. Resultantly, there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.