INDIAN AIR LINES vs ENGINEER CHANDER MOHAN KAURA

THIS appeal is by Indian Air Lines challenging order of District Forum, Patiala dated December 24, 1996 directing the appellant to pay in lumpsum Rs. 15,000/- inclusive of price of air ticket as well as compensation and costs to the complainant. Engineer Chander Mohan Kaura.

THE question involved in this appeal is about deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Indian Air Lines in the matter of asking the complainant to purchase another ticket as the original had been lost to take journey in the same plane. Chander Mohan claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- before the District Forum. THE stand of the opposite party - Indian Air Lines being that original ticket was not available and no duplicate could be issued. THEre was no deficiency on their part as on return of original ticket the price could be paid back by any of the offices of the Indian Air Lines. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents on the basis of which impugned order was passed. Chander Mohan, respondent appeared in person on one of the dates of hearing i.e. June 2, 1997. Thereafter, he did not put in appearance. We have heard Counsel for the appellant. There is no dispute that the original ticket had been lost or misplaced and the complainant had to purchase another ticket and he availed the same seat and completed the journey. The question is as to whether there was deficiency in rendering service calling upon the complainant to purchase another ticket for the same journey. State Commission, Calcutta, in Commercial Manager, Indian Air Lines, Calcutta v. S.N. Mukherjee, 7 (1992) CPR 66, held that there was deficiency in rendering service asking the passenger to purchase duplicate air-ticket when the original had been lost. We are of the opinion with great respect to the President and Members of the State Commission, Calcutta that the view expressed therein is not correct. Without the air-ticket nobody could be allowed to board the plane and if the same had been misplaced and in the absence of any terms and conditions of the ticket or air rules and regulations of the Air Lines to issue duplicate ticket, it was incumbent upon the complainant to purchase another ticket to complete the journey. On that account, there was no question of any deficiency in rendering service on the part of Indian Air Lines.

Although in the complaint there was no specific assertion making claim to the refund of the ticket, which was lost, however, since it has been argued we are dealing with this point. The original ticket had been traced and was shown during the pendency of the proceedings before the District Forum. Counsel for the Air Lines states that on the return of aforesaid ticket, the amount of the ticket would be refunded. It could also be done by presenting original ticket at any of the offices of the Air Lines and to collect the amount. Be that as it may. Since the original ticket had not been returned to the Air Lines, there cannot be any deficiency in rendering service on their part in the matter of refund of the ticket amount.

EX.R-2 refers to the general terms and conditions bringing to the notice of the passengers. On the subject of refund of the air- ticket, it states as under: "Refunds: Refunds are made to the passengers or to the approved Travel Agent who purchased the ticket. Ticket purchased in cash from any Indian Air Lines Office can be cancelled at the same or any other Indian Air Lines Office. Ticket purchased through a recognized travel agent will be returned to the agent only. Refund charges on domestic flights -adult child ticket Rs. 100/- infant tickets- NIL. Refund on ticket where flight delayed-cancelled-NIL. International ticket-Refund administration charge Rs. 200/-. No refund can be made against lost tickets."

At the bottom of the ticket a note is added "No refund is permissible against that tickets". Phraseology used as above indicates in clear words that if ticket is lost money is lost meaning thereby if refund is to be claimed the original ticket has to be produced. Since in the present case original ticket has been traced it would be open to the complainant to present the same at any of the Air Lines Office and to collect the refund. Since there was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Air- Lines, District Forum was not justified in granting compensation. While allowing the appeal and modifying the order of the District Forum we set aside the direction with respect to the grant of compensation as above and direct the Air Lines to refund the ticket amount on presentation of the original ticket. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.