BALJIT KAUR vs AIR INDIA

APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Air India and Anr.

VERY briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant on coming to know that her mother is unwell in Canada, obtained a visa on 4.4.1995 to travel to Canada to be with her ailing mother. The brother of the petitioner informed her that necessary arrangements have been made for her to travel by Air India from New Delhi to London and from London to Calgary by Air Canada, upon which she contacted Air India, but when she wanted the ticket, it was not given to her. When again on 7.4.1995, she approached the respondent office, she was given ticket for 9th April which was availed of. However, the mother of the appellant died on 8.4.1995 at Canada, thus, alleging deficiency in service, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint, hence this appeal. Upon issue of notice to the complainant''s Counsel it was noted that the Counsel has since expired. Notice was again issued to the appellant herself, who remained absent despite service, hence we go on to pass this order based on the material on record and after hearing the learned Counsel for the respondent.

Before us, the case is sought to be made by the appellant that Air India office informed her on the morning on 6.4.1995 that a seat has been confirmed for morning of 7.4.1995 and on 6.4.1995 itself at 11.00 a.m. she went with her passport but after seeing the passport she was asked to come at 2.00 p.m. to collect the ticket, but at that given time the ticket was not given to her.

IF one goes through the material on record, as held by the State Commission, that in the cross-examination of the complainant, she admitted that she did not contact the in-charge of office on 6.4.1995. On the contrary she admitted in her cross-examination that the respondents contacted her on 6.4.1995 and informed about the availability of the seat and the ticket. IF still the ticket was not collected by the appellant, the deficiency cannot lie on the part of the respondents. In view of above, the State Commission rightly dismisssed the complaint. Even before us, no new ground is shown necessitating our interfering with the order passed by the State Commission, which is well merited and does not call for any interference. The appeal is devoid of merit, hence dismissed. Appeal dismissed.