VIMAL AGARWAL vs MANAGER, ROYAL NEPAL AIRLINES CORPORATION

THIS complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainants who are recently married and planned for a honeymoon trip to Nepal on 23.12.1995. They purchased two tickets for the purpose of travel to Katmandu from Bombay in Royal Nepal Airlines, the first opposite party in the complaint. The travel from Bombay was to take place on 25.12.1995 and the status of the complainants booking was shown as O.K. The tickets were issued by the third opposite party a recognised travel agent on behalf of the second opposite party who is the general sales agent of the first opposite party. The third opposite party also issued two tickets for travel from Kochi to Bombay by Modiluft flight. The complainants reached Bombay on 24.12.1995. The departure time was 11.30 a.m. The complainants reached Bombay International Air Port at 8.30 a.m. to check in. They found their names were not included in the passenger manifest of 25.12.1995 though they were in possession of O.K. tickets. The staff at the counter refused to issue boarding pass to the complainants. However, the staff of first opposite party promised the complainants to accommodate them in the next day''s flight. But on the next day also they were not accommodated. They stayed back till 1.1.1996. The complainant alleged that they lost a chance of enjoying their honeymoon because of the deficiency on the part of the opposite party. They had to incur unnecessary expenditure at Bombay. The complainants have claimed the total compensation of Rs. 5,44,000/-.

OPPOSITE parties filed version. The first opposite party admitted that the status of the ticket issued by the opposite party was ''OK'' but contended that for an International Flight it is absolutely essential to get the tickets re-confirmed after its purchase atleast 72 hours prior the time of departure. Though the complainants purchased the ticket from second opposite party through the third opposite party they never got it re-confirmed. It is further alleged that on the back of the ticket there is a seal affixed stating as follows: '' "Please re-confirm your flight 72 hours before the departure". The opposite parties never promised to accommodate the complainants on 25.12.1995. It is further stated that the flight schedule of the opposite party clearly shows that the flight to Katmandu are operated only on Friday and Monday. The other contentions were also denied. In the circumstances it was contended that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The second opposite party also filed a version virtually reiterating the contention of the first opposite party that he booking status of the complainant is shown as ''OK'' but there was no re-confirmation of tickets 72 hours before the departure of the flight as required. The other averments were also denied.

The first complainant filed an affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint. The first opposite party also filed affidavit reiterating the contentions raised in his version, namely, being International Flight a re-confirmation 72 hours before the departure was necessary and in the circumstances there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party in not including the complaints'' names in the passengers manifest list on 25.12.1995. On behalf of the complainant Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked. On behalf of the first opposite party Exhibits R1 to R2, R1(a), R2(d), R1(b), R2(b) were marked.

THE following points arise for consideration: (1) Whether there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties or any of them? (2) If so, what is the relief to which the complainants are entitled? (3) What is the order as to costs? Point No. 1. THE main defence taken by the opposite parties is that the flight in question being an International Flight re-confirmation before 72 hours of departure is an essential requirement and that requirement is specifically stated in the Jacket and that requirement is not complied with. THE original Jacket has not been produced. We are prepared to assume there is such a requirement though there is no clear evidence in this aspect. However, we find the third opposite party has issued ticket on 23.12.1995 on behalf of the second opposite party for travel on 25.12.1995 knowing fully well that so called requirement cannot be complied with as the booking is to travel on 25.12.1995. THEre is deficiency on the part of the second opposite party in issuing a ticket with ''OK'' status to travel on 25.12.1995 knowing fully well that the requirement of re-confirmation before 72 hours before departure is not capable of being complied with. In such circumstances the second opposite party should not have issued a ticket on 23.12.1995 for travel to 25.12.1995 with ''OK'' status if re- confirmation before 72 hours before departure is required. THEre is a duty cast on the second opposite party to give necessary instruction to the complainants about the necessity of re- confirmation by the first opposite party within the period available for travel. But no such thing was done. In the circumstances we are inclined to hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the second opposite party being the original sales agent of the first opposite party. Though second opposite party is admittedly Agent of first opposite party in view of the decision of the National Commission in Air India v. Yogendra Hiralal Parekh, II (1996) CPJ 116 (NC)=1996 (2) CPR 55 (NC), we are unable to fasten vicarious liability on the first opposite party for the deficiency committed by the second opposite party. However, opposite parties 2 and 3 cannot be exonerated because at the instance of the third opposite party second opposite party issued the ticket. Exhibits P1 and P2 clearly show that the second opposite party has issued the ticket. Coming to the question of compensation we find the opposite parties had already returned the ticket fare from Bombay to Katmandu. The complainants'' case is that it is in order to go to Katmandu they purchased two tickets from, Bombay to Kochi which costed Rs. 14,000/-. In our view the complainants are entitled to refund of this amount. The complainants have also produced certain documents to show that they had incurred expenditure to stay back at Bombay as the opposite party promised to accommodate them for the flight on succeeding dates, but failed to fulfil the assurance. However, we are not satisfied that they stayed back in Bombay on all these days. The documents produced would show that they went to Mahabaleswaram Valley on 27.12.1995. There is also no acceptable evidence to show that the first opposite party promised to accommodate them on succeeding days. It was pointed out that there were flights of the first opposite party only on Monday and Friday from Bombay to Katmandu. In the circumstances we are not inclined to accept the case of the complainants that the opposite party had promised to accommodate the complainants on succeeding dates. However, having come to Bombay they would have incurred some expenditure which we estimate at Rs. 3,000/- and the complainants are entitled to that amount also. The complainants must have suffered great mental agony as they lost the opportunity to enjoy their honey moon at Katmandu as planned. We allow Rs. 5,000/- under that count. Thus the complainants are entitled to get a total amount of Rs. 22,000/-. Besides this complainants are entitled to their costs which we fix at Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment within one month, the complainants are entitled to get interest at the rate of 15% for the delayed period. These amounts will be paid by the opposite parties 2 and 3.

THE O.P. is disposed of as above. O.P. disposed of.