SURESH RASTOGI vs ROYAL JORDAN AIRLINES

-FEELING aggrieved of the order passed by the District Forum whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking refund of the price of the ticket of O.P. No. 1 purchased through its agent O.P. No. 2 M/s. Bajaj Travels as well as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.

PRIMARY facts are not in dispute. The appellants purchased two tickets of respondent No. 1 M/s. Royal Jordan Airlines for their journey from Delhi to New York. The tickets were issued by its agent M/s. Bajaj Travels on 8.5.1997 with O.K. status for outward journey from Delhi to New York and return ticket was also confirmed for 5.12.1997. In token of confirmation of the tickets sticker of O.K. status was pasted on the ticket. These tickets were valid for six months. After availing the ticket for the journey from Delhi to New York the appellant wished to come back India a little earlier than the confirmed flight on 5.12.1997. However, on contacting respondent No. 1 at New York he was told that all seats were full on 5.12.1997. Thereafter he remained in touch with respondent No. 1 on every alternate date to get the confirmed tickets and the respondent confirmed the flight on 28.10.1997 with O.K. status. Before proceeding he again confirmed the status and he was told that everything is confirmed and he along with his wife could check in atleast 2 hours before the flight''s scheduled time and he was shocked when he was getting his baggage at respondent''s counter checked that one of their staff told that their tickets were expired. Since it was Diwali festival he wanted to celebrate it in their native country and, therefore, requested the Flight Manager of respondent No. 1 to permit them to go by the same flight. This request was acceded to but on payment of charges for new two tickets equivalent to US $ 788. On account of aforesaid conduct of respondent No. 1 emanating from the conduct of respondent No. 2 the appellant approached the District Forum seeking refund of the tickets he was forced to purchase in spite of having a confirmed status of already purchased tickets.

The perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned District Forum has traversed into altogether different arena by dismissing the claim of the appellant as the complaint was dismissed on the premise that the appellant has purchased the tickets of respondent No. 1 from Mr. Sanjay Jain, Representative of Advoyage Travel Agent and not from respondent No. 2 M/s. Bajaj Travels. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the District Forum fell in grave error by reaching this conclusion as he had purchased the ticket from Advoyage Travel Agent for a subsequent visit to New York as the appellant visits New York every year and this time he did not purchase from respondent No. 2. This is such a fact which needs to be redetermined by the District Forum as this contention of the appellant has not been dealt with. The impression one gets on reading the impugned order is that the appellant had purchased the tickets in question from M/s. Advoyage Travel Agency and not from M/s. Bajaj Travels.

WE allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and send back the matter to the District Forum with the direction to decide the matter afresh by dealing with the aforesaid contention raised by the Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 30.11.2005 for the aforesaid purpose. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. Appeal allowed.