Sondhi Travels vs Jaspreet Singh Makkar

THIS revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh dated 23.02.2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed First Appeal No.334/07 filed by the petitioner and while maintaining the order of the District Forum, allowed the appeal of the complainants by enhancing quantum of compensation from Rs.25,000/ - to Rs.1,00,000/ -.

BRIEFLY put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner / appellant Sondhi Travel is a travel agent. Complainant Jaspreet Singh Makkar with a view to migrate to Canada, approached respondent no.2 for booking of four tickets of Singapore Airlines for travel from Amritsar to Vancouver. Respondent no.2 got booked four tickets for the complainant and his family through the petitioner on 10.08.2005. The status of those tickets was mentioned as O.K., which according to the complainant means a confirmed ticket. It is the case of the complainant that when the complainant was ready for travel, he received a telephonic call from the petitioner / appellant informing that two out of the four tickets were cancelled and the tickets of his children were confirmed. It is further alleged that even the children could not travel on the flight scheduled for 02.09.2005 because they could not have entered the Canada without being accompanied by the complainant as he was the principal applicant for immigration to Canada. It is further the case of the complainant that complainant explained this position to the appellant but one Mr. Gaurav, Senior Sales Manager of the appellant instead of helping, behaved very rudely. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, respondent no.1 filed consumer complaint.

THE appellant contested the consumer complaint alleging that he is not a general sales agent for Singapore Airlines and he has nothing to do with the confirmation of tickets, which is a job of airline. It was pleaded that complaint is bad for non -joinder of Singapore Airlines because the tickets were cancelled by the airlines. It was denied that there was any person with the name of Gaurav working with the appellant. The appellant also pleaded that the tickets so issued were subject to reconfirmation atleast 72 hours before the date of travel. The District Forum Ludhiana on consideration of the pleadings, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant / opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/ - to the respondent / complainant.

BEING aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the complainant as well as appellant filed cross appeals and the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant / opposite party and allowed the appeal of the complainant for enhancement of compensation.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order is not sustainable for the reason that State Commission has failed to appreciate that the appellant was not liable for confirmation or cancellation of tickets as he was only an agent of Singapore Airlines and that Singapore Airlines was a necessary party. Learned counsel has further contended that State Commission failed to appreciate that the words ''OK now'' on the ticket was not a confirmed ticket but was only OK subject to the terms and conditions. It was further contended that State Commission has committed a grave error in over looking the validity of the tickets.

LEARNED counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order.

WE have considered the rival contentions and perused the record.

ADMITTEDLY , appellant is a travel agent and at the behest of the respondent / complainant , he booked four travel tickets of Singapore Airlines for the complainant and his family. It cannot be disputed that confirmation or cancellation of tickets for a specific flight is not within the domain of travel agent booking the ticket but this is the job of airlines concerned. Therefore, in our considered view, Singapore Airlines which did not confirm all the four tickets is a necessary party for just adjudication of the dispute as Airlines can explain the reason for non -confirmation of two tickets. Since Singapore Airlines has not been made a party in the complaint, complaint is bad for non -joinder of the necessary party.

COMING to the merits of the case. The question for determination is whether the tickets issued to the complainant were confirmed tickets? On perusal of the photocopies of the tickets issued to the complainant and his family members, we find that on these tickets, status is mentioned as ''OK NOW''. In the column of ''Not Valid Before'', no date is mentioned, meaning thereby that complainant and his family members could have travelled on the said tickets from the date of issue of tickets till 02nd September. In such a situation, pre confirmation of travel is necessary to avoid confusion. Thus, word ''OK Now'' only means that ticket was OK but subject to confirmation.

IN view of the discussion above, it is obvious that foras below have failed to appreciate the facts of the case in correct perspective. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. We accordingly allow the revision petition, set aside the orders of the foras below and dismiss the complaint.