INTERGLOBE AIR TRANSPORT vs CHARANJIT SINGH BAHNIWAL

DR. Charanjit Singh Bahniwal, the complainant, possessed a confirmed ticket for the flight from New Delhi to Chicago for the intervening night of 26th & 27th February, 1995 but in reality on account of over-booking he was not provided the promised flight. He ultimately took an alternative flight and in respect of return journey the original facilities were not adhered to. The complainant could avail the original ticket for a period of six months and it could even further be extended for another six months. The alternative ticket arranged for him was valid only for a period of 45 days. The District Forum, Chandigarh ordered on 20.3.1997 that the complainant was entitled to $807 in the form of rupees which he spent on the return journey. It also ordered that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was payable as compensation. Aggrieved against it the present appeal has been attempted.

IT is an admitted fact that when the complainant reported at New Delhi Airport he was not provided accommodation despite the ''okayed ticket'' on the intervening night of 26th & 27th February, 1995. However, it appears that the appellants did help in arranging some other flight through a different Airlines from New Delhi to Chicago. All this necessitated the stay of the passenger for the entire night at New Delhi Airport. Thus total breach of agreement at the time of onward flight has been established. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants that extra booking is a matter of routine, has no merit and on the contrary we are of the view that such practice must be deprecated. Besides the inconvenience referred to above, in this case the passenger was not provided a ticket containing original facility that it was to remain valid for a period of six months for the return journey. It is not disputed that the alternative ticket was valid only for 45 days. This obviously necessitated purchase of return ticket afresh on which the passenger spent $807 (Rs. 28/245/-).

It shall be useful to refer to an important part of the judgment of the District Forum and it is reproduced as under : "The Managers of the International Air Lines have no right to issue O.K. tickets to their passengers and then leave them high and dry at the Airport by telling them that no seat is available since the flight is already over-booked. Not much of imagination is needed to conjure up the embarrassment of a passenger holding a confirmed ticket when he is not allowed to emplane the flight for which he was booked. For the management of Air-Lines the missing of a flight by a passenger may be a routine affair but the passenger involved has to face several ordeals when he misses flight for no fault of his. The passengers invariably carry baggage with them which they have to carry back and arrange for spending the night some where. The hotels in the vicinity of International Air-ports are very expensive. Since the passenger has to try his luck on the following morning, willy- nilly he had to stay in a hotel nearby the Port. The passengers also fix up with the relatives/friends to receive them at the station of their destination. The missing of a flight upsets these arrangements also".

THUS it is a case where the allegations of the complainant were well established. When a passenger is in such a difficult situation he scarcely has means to assert and verify the conditions which are written on the alternative ticket thrust on him. Even otherwise the appellant was not fair in arranging a ticket having terms and conditions different or dis-advantageous to the passenger. The contention raised on behalf of appellant that the facility of the return journey remained unavailed so far as the appellant is concerned, has no merit. In such a case it may be too much to expect that the passenger would again knock at the door of such a defaulter who considers that over booking is a kind of right. We hold that the passenger was rightly entitled to claim the price of the new return ticket as ordered by the District Forum together with the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- which does not call for reduction in the circumstances of the case. The conclusion is that the appeal is dismissed with costs Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.