STIC TRAVELS (P) LTD. vs INDRA KATHPALIA

THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, whereby the State Commission affirmed the order of the District Forum.

THE brief facts giving rise to the complaint are as under : THE complainants, in this case, are wife and husband, who had purchased excursion tickets of Lot Polish Airlines through their Agent, M/s. Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd. petitioner before us. THEse tickets were valid for four months, i.e., from 31.7.1992 to 30.11.1992. THE journey to be performed was from Delhi-Warsaw-London-Toronto-London-Warsaw-Delhi. As is found from the records placed before us the route adopted was Warsaw-Moscow-New York, instead of Warsaw-London-Toronto and separate tickets were purchased by the respondents from New York to Buffalo after paying additional fare. THE tickets for return journey were kept open and since the Lot Polish did not fly Trans Atlantic, the said journey could be performed by any other carrier and there was an endorsement to the said effect on the tickets. THE complainants in August, 1992, on arrival in Canada, contacted British Airways and requested for the booking of return journey on 24.10.1992 from Toronto to London by British Airways and from London to Warsaw on 4.11.1992 by Lot Polish Airlines and from Warsaw to New Delhi also by the same airlines on 4.11.1992 itself. THE tickets of the respondents from Toronto to London for 24.10.1992 and London to Warsaw by Lot Polish Airlines on 4.11.1992 were confirmed, however the section of return journey from Warsaw to New Delhi was not confirmed immediately. On being contacted by British Airways, the office/agent of Lot Polish Airlines at Toronto intimated that they had not yet received schedules for flights from Warsaw to New Delhi after October 21, 1992 and, therefore, the bookings of the respondents were shown as "Requested For" by British Airways. THE respondents thereafter contacted the office/agent of Lot Polish Airlines in Toronto over telephone and were advised to contact them again in September, 1992. THE respondents again contacted the British Airways on 28.9.1992 for confirmation of the return tickets and were again informed that the booking for return journey for section Warsaw to New Delhi scheduled for 4.11.1992 was still not confirmed and as such the very next day, i.e., on 29.9.1992 the respondents again visited the office/agent of the Lot Polish Airlines in Toronto where they were informed that the flights from Warsaw to New Delhi had been discontinued after 21.10.1992 and that the said decision had already been taken some time in January/February, 1992. THE request of the respondents for endorsement of tickets to another Airlines was also turned down. THE respondents sought the help of their friend for intervention in the matter but since the flight of Lot Polish Airlines from Warsaw to Delhi was to leave on 31.10.1992 and the said Airlines refused to endorse the tickets of the respondents to any other Airlines. THE respondents were left with no alternative but to curtail their trip and return to New Delhi on the flight of the Lot Polish Airlines leaving on 21.10.1992. As such, not only the respondents had to curtail their visit/stay in Canada/USA but had to completely cancel their plan to visit UK and Western Europe in order to catch the last flight of Lot Polish Airlines leaving on 21.10.1992. As such the respondent filed separate complaints before the District Forum claiming damages and compensation from the appellant and the Lot Polish Airlines. The District Forum had given the opportunity to both the sides to file their respective contentions through documents and oral evidence in the form of affidavits. Both the complainants had filed their own affidavits besides producing other documents in support of their contentions while the opposite parties had adduced no evidence in spite of taking time for the purpose. While deciding the complaints, the District Forum held as under : "The tickets purchased by the complainants entitled them to travel, on their return leg, Toronto-London-Warsaw-New Delhi upto November 30, 1992. However, opposite party discontinued their flight in the sector Warsaw-Delhi w.e.f. 21st October, 1992. The complainants have deposed that they were informed by opposite parties office/agents that decision to discontinue flight on this sector had been taken in January/February, 1992, long before the purchase of tickets by the complainants and it was known to opposite parties. Opposite parties have produced no material to show when the decision was taken if it was not taken in January/February, 1992 and when opposite party No. 2 came to know of the same, if they had come to know about it after the sale of the tickets to the complainants. Assuming that the decision was taken after the sale of the tickets, it was the duty of the opposite parties to make alternative arrangements. Their claim that they had made alternative arrangements with Air Canada and had offered to endorse the ticket to some other airline but the complainants wanted to fly to Delhi on 21st October, 1992 itself and had no intention to stay back is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, we have the affidavits of the complainants, who are respectable persons. Complainants claim that they had approached their office/agent at Toronto after getting return tickets booked for 4th November, 1992 when booking from Warsaw-London was not confirmed and was shown as Requested for, British Airways. They had again contacted them on or around September 29, 1992 when information as mentioned in para 8 of the complaint (extracted above) was furnished. No one from Toronto office has contradicted the complainants about their approaching their office and protesting and pleading. Complainants are also corroborated by Shri Jagmohan Singh Gill of Ontario province who had accompanied the complainants in August and again in September when they contacted opposite parties'' agent in Toronto. The complainants had also sought the help of Shri Ravindra Gupta, representative of India on the Council of International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal to intervene and help, the complainant in getting their tickets to another carrier endorsed. The opposite parties had not pleaded while replying to notices sent by the complainants that the complainants were offered to have their tickets endorsed by another airline, but the complainants chose to cut short their trip. The replies sent by the opposite parties have been filed by the complainant and are placed in the record of Case No. 2089/1993. The defence taken by the opposite parties in their reply before the Forum is clearly an after-thought."

The District Forum, in view of what is stated above, directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 57,203/- to the complainant, Shri Prem Kumar Kathpalia and Rs. 55,203/- to his wife, Smt. Indra Kathpalia and further held that it would be open to the opposite parties to supply return tickets to London to each of the complainants at their own costs in lieu of the price of the ticket (Rs. 46,663/-) and pay the balance amount awarded. The District Forum also held that in case of non-compliance of the above directions, the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the amounts so awarded. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, opposite party No. 2, M/s. Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd. went in appeal to the State Commission which dismissed the appeal in the following terms : "Thus, the learned District Forum has considered every aspect of the matter and has dealt with the same in detail. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned order of the District Forum so as to call for any interference in the same in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction. The present appeal, therefore, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed accordingly."

Still not satisfied, the opposite party No. 2, i.e., Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd. has come in revision before us. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both sides and have also gone through the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission.

The only plea urged before us by the petitioner is that they had acted only as an agent of the opposite party No. 1, Lot Polish Airlines, and under Section 230 of the Contract Act, the agent has no liability. Section 230 of the Contract Act reads as under : "230 : In the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them. Such a contract shall be presumed to exist in the following cases- (1) where the contract is made by an agent for the sale or purchase of goods for merchant resident abroad; (2) where the agent does not disclose the name of his principal; (3) where the principal, though disclosed cannot be sued."

IT is clear from the language of the section that there are three exceptions to the general rule contained in the section and such exception (1) quoted above is where the principal is not available in India which is admittedly the case here. In that view of the matter the plea of the petitioners is without any substance and merits rejection. There is no other plea urged before us. For that reason the Revision Petition is dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs. 2,000/- Revision Petition dismissed.