S.T.I.C. TRAVELS (P.) LTD. vs NARESH KUMAR

-THE complainants, who had married on 2.9.1996, booked the tickets for travel from Madras to Kathmandu where they intend to spend their honeymoon. THEy have also arranged for their stay at Nepal at Hotel Taj Annapoorna, Kathmandu from 17.9.1996 to 22.9.1996 through M/s. Clipper Holidays. On 17.9.1996, the complainants commenced their journey and reached Calcutta at 1030 hours. THEir connecting flight RA 214 was scheduled to leave Calcutta at 1525 hours. While waiting in the Airport, the complainants did not see RA 214 flight number on the display board and the complainants contacted the Royal Nepal Airlines counter at Calcutta Airport and came to know that the Royal Nepal Airlines cancelled the flight Calcutta-Kathmandu from 1.9.1996 onwards. In spite of it, the second opposite party has issued tickets from Calcutta to Kathmandu on 19.9.1996. THE complainants were asked to make their own arrangement for their stay at Calcutta. On account of the irresponsible conduct of the first opposite party and being put in a helpless position, they had returned to Chennai. When they contacted the second opposite party at Chennai, they were asked to give a complaint in writing and accordingly the complainants issued a letter on 20.9.1996 to the second opposite party explaining the sequence of events and requested them to refund the sum of Rs. 29,290/- comprising a sum of Rs. 26,190/- being the cost of air tickets and Rs. 3,100/- being the amount due to the cancellation of their stay at Kathmandu. THEy also contacted M/s. Clipper Holidays for refund of Rs. 15,565/- paid as advance for their stay at Hotel Taj Annapoorna at Kathmandu and they in turn had issued demand draft for Rs. 12,524/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 3,041/-. THE second opposite party made payment of Rs. 6,654/- and Rs. 710/- on 28.9.1996 and 5.10.1996 respectively. THEy also informed that the first opposite party never informed them about the cancellation of the flight. With regard to the refund of Rs. 29,290/-, they informed that they have written to the first opposite party to make the payment. THE first opposite party in their letter has stated that the flight from Calcutta to Kathmandu on 17.9.1996 was cancelled and all passengers were transferred to Indian Airlines Flight on the same day, but in the case of the complainants, they had arrived at Calcutta from Madras only after the Indian Airlines Flight had departed from Calcutta to Kathmandu and hence they were unable to avail the alternate arrangements made. It is further stated that the Airport staff of the first opposite party had requested the complainants to stay in a hotel arranged by them, so that the earliest available flight could be arranged for them but they denied to avail the alternate arrangements and returned to their hometown. THE complainants sent a notice on 25.11.1996 pointing out what had happened. THEy issued notice on 25.11.1996 calling upon the first opposite party to refund the balance amount along with a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical inconvenience. Thus the complaint came to be laid.

THE first opposite party in their version has stated that the complaint is not maintainable since it lacks territorial jurisdiction. THE first opposite party is a Foreign Airlines having its office at Calcutta and carries on its business from its office at Calcutta and, therefore, is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. THE complainants had booked a "package tour" with the second opposite party and not just a return air ticket. THE said package tour included tickets from Calcutta to Kathmandu and Kathmandu to Delhi. It is not admitted that the first opposite party issued confirmed tickets through the second opposite party for flights from Madras to Calcutta and from Delhi to Madras. THE said tickets for journey from Madras to Calcutta and from Delhi to Madras were issued for the Indian Airlines. THE first opposite party does not operate in those sectors. Air tickets all over the world are issued under a contract between the carrier and the passenger as "contract tickets" and the parties are bound by the terms of the contract. THE flight from Calcutta to Kathmandu on 17.9.1996 was cancelled and all the passengers booked on the said flight except the complainants were transferred to the Indian Airlines flight on the same day which departed as per schedule. THE complainants however reported at the airport counter of the opposite party after Indian Airlines flight departed for Kathmandu. THE Airport staff of the first opposite party requested the complainants to stay in a hotel arranged by them at their costs and promised to send them by the earliest flight for Kathmandu. However, the complainants rejected the said alternate arrangement and returned to their hometown. It is not true to say that they requested to make arrangements and the duty officer refused to do so. THE entire costs of air tickets from Calcutta to Kathmandu and from Kathmandu to Delhi has since been refunded to the complainants by the second opposite party who initially arranged the package tour for the complainants. THE first opposite party has no liability for the said package tour and there has been no deficiency in service. Cancellation of the flights are made for imperative reasons and negligence cannot be attributed to the same. Cancellation of flight arises out of unavoidable and valid reasons. All the passengers were duly informed of the cancellation of Calcutta-Kathmandu flight on 17.9.1996 and were provided with alternative arrangements. THE first opposite party is not responsible for connecting flights. THEre is no deficiency in service and the opposite party prays that the O.P. may be dismissed with costs. The second opposite party pleaded as follows: The tickets were booked from Madras to Calcutta and from Calcutta to Kathmandu and back to Madras via Delhi. Air booking was arranged for the complainants to go to Calcutta enroute Kathmandu with date of departure as indicated in the para 4 of the complaint. The complainant is not aware about the lodging arrangements made by them at Kathmandu. This opposite party did not get any information about the cancellation of the flight RA 214 operated by the first opposite party from Calcutta to Kathmandu. In the absence of any information, this opposite party honestly and sincerely believed that the flight continued to operate in the usual manner. It is the practice followed in international air travel that the names of the passengers, the travel agents who booked the tickets, the date, time of departure and the flight in which they are arriving to board the flight are prepared in such a manner all information will be known to the International Airlines. In case, certain flights are cancelled for whatever reasons, and sufficient time is available the Airline concerned should inform the travel agents concerned by fax message about the cancellation of the flight. This practice is strictly followed to avoid inconvenience to the passengers as well as embarrassment for the travel agents. In this case, no such information was received from the first opposite party in writing. The information that flight was not available to Kathmandu from Calcutta and the officials of Royal Nepal Airlines failed to provide accommodation at Calcutta are not within the knowledge of this opposite party. Cancellation of flights is a normal feature in Airlines both domestic and international flights due to technical reasons, weather and non-availability of aircraft. It is also the practice to provide accommodation for stranded passengers and to arrange for booking in the next available flight. It is seen from the correspondence between the complainants and the first opposite party that actually the first opposite party agreed to provide hotel accommodation for them till 19.9.1996. Perhaps the complainants declined to accept the offer made by the first opposite party. As a special case, the second opposite party cancelled the unused tickets and refunded the fare of the unused tickets of different sectors as a special case without charging any extra for the services rendered. The loss incurred by the complainant in cancelling the accommodation at Kathmandu is not admitted. This opposite party is not aware of the cancellation of flight RA 214 for Kathmandu for 17.9.1996 or that the passengers booked in the flight were transferred to Indian Airlines Flight. The other allegations made in the complaint are not admitted. Air booking was done by this opposite party as desired by the complainants. This opposite party before the departure from Madras confirmed about the confirmation of the booking by Royal Airlines from Calcutta to Kathmandu. Thus, there is no deficiency in service that could be alleged as against this opposite party. There is no liability cast upon this opposite party to make payment.

The lower Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay compensation Rs. 15,000/- with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the lower Forum, the present appeal has been laid. The complainant and his wife who were just married had decided to go to Kathmandu to spend their Honeymoon. They have booked their tickets from Chennai to Kathmandu via Calcutta and from Kathmandu to Chennai via Delhi. That part of the journey from Chennai to Calcutta was performed by them. According to them, on arriving at Calcutta Airport on 17.9.1996, they were informed that the first opposite party''s flight to Kathmandu was cancelled and when they requested that arrangements may be made for them for their stay, the first opposite party did not agree and, therefore, they had to return back to Chennai abandoning their Honeymoon plans. According to the first opposite party, the flight to Kathmandu was cancelled and all those passengers booked for that flight were transferred to Indian Airlines flight to Kathmandu and since the complainant and his wife did not arrive in time to catch the flight, they could not make it and, therefore, the first opposite party informed them that they would make necessary arrangements for their stay and will arrange their flight to Kathmandu at the next earliest available flight. Their further case is that the complainants did not agree to that and opted to return home and thus there is no liability upon them. Of course, it is not stated nor any reasons are given for the cancellation of the flight on that day. There may be umpteen reasons for cancellation of a flight. It is also not in dispute that the complainants held confirmed tickets for travel from Calcutta to Kathmandu. The second opposite party also refunded the money for the unused tickets.

NOW the point to be decided is whether a complaint would lie against the first opposite party before this Forum. The cause of action has arisen only at Calcutta. It is clear that the complainants had booked under package tour. It is also stated by the second opposite party that the said package tour included tickets from Calcutta to Kathmandu and Kathmandu to Delhi. It is also not in dispute that the tickets for journey from Chennai to Calcutta and from Delhi to Chennai were issued for the Indian Airlines. Only that part the flight between Calcutta and Kathmandu is operated by the first opposite party. The first opposite party is an international flight operator. They have no branch or business at Chennai. The cancellation had taken place only at Calcutta. It is only there where their journey came to an end since Royal Nepal Airlines was cancelled. According to the first opposite party, they promised to make arrangements for the complainants'' stay, but they refused and returned. Whatever be that, the hiring of service as far as the complainants are concerned would arise only from that sector, Calcutta to Kathmandu for which admittedly tickets were issued only by the Royal Nepal Airlines. Therefore, it is only that part of the journey that was not performed and could not be performed. Assuming that there was deficiency in service on account of the cancellation of the flight that deficiency has arisen only at Calcutta and not either at Chennai or at Delhi. The contract of service between the first opposite party and the complainant was only between the Sectors-Calcutta and Kathmandu and arose only in that part and was valid only for the flight between Calcutta and Kathmandu. It is with reference to that part, according to the complainant, there has been deficiency in service. Admittedly the first opposite party has no place of business in Chennai and they have a place of business only at Calcutta and not anywhere. Therefore, when deficiency in service is complained of against them and it is relatable to a flight operated by them from Calcutta to Kathmandu that deficiency in service would arise and result only at Calcutta from where the complainants were unable to perform their journey to Kathmandu owing to the cancellation of the flight. Therefore, the Forum at Chennai cannot be held to have any jurisdiction. Mere issuance of tickets from Chennai by a Travel Agent at Chennai cannot bring it within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. For the entire cause of action, the deficiency in service, the right to claim compensation have all arisen only at Calcutta and merely because the travel agent at Chennai issued the tickets, the scene cannot stand transferred to the jurisdiction of Chennai Forum. Consequently in that view of the matter, we have to hold that as far as the first opposite party is concerned the complaint has been lodged before a Forum which has no jurisdiction. Therefore, that part of the complaint deserves to be set aside. Now coming to the part played by the second opposite party, even according to the complainant, he has refunded the fair of the unused tickets. According to the first opposite party, the complainants were informed that arrangements would be made for their stay at Calcutta and they will arrange for that their travel to Kathmandu immediately by next earliest available flight. But for the reasons best known to them, they had not chosen to take up on that, but returned to Chennai. Therefore, in such circumstances, any expenses incurred by them owing to the cancellation of boarding arrangement at Kathmandu have to be borne by them since it cannot be said that it is the opposite parties 1 and 2 who are solely responsible for the same. The lower Forum has granted a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony and disappointment and frustration. Of course, how this amount has been arrived, the details are not mentioned. It is no doubt true that if the flights are cancelled and if a trip planned could not be undertaken especially when they are new wedded couples, definitely it would cause some disappointment but not mental agony. But one has to consider whether there was any wilful act of negligence or carelessness or deficiency on the part of the opposite parties that has caused the disappointment to the complainants. Nothing prevented the complainants from proceeding as planned by them by taking the next flight. But they chose to return back to Chennai. As we have pointed out already the cancellation of the flight can be due to numerous circumstances. While according to the first opposite party, they have informed all the agents, the second opposite party would conveniently say that they have not received any intimation. But whatever it be, merely the cancellation of flight will not lead to an inference in deficiency in service unless it is established satisfactorily that it is attributable to a lack of care on the part of the operator. Therefore, in our view, just on the ground of cancellation and resultant disappointment caused to the complainants, the opposite parties cannot be made liable to make good the same. As far as the second opposite party is concerned, they have atoned by refunding the fare for the unused tickets. One cannot expect more of them. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, we are of the view that this is not a case where either the first or second opposite parties can be hauled up for deficiency in service. Therefore, in our view, the order passed by the lower Forum directing them to make payment of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- is not tenable and deserves to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without costs. The order passed by the lower Forum will stand set aside. Appeal allowed.