STIC TRAVELS P LTD vs SANJEEV JAIN

APPELLANT was opposite party No. 2 before the State Commission where the respondent Nos. 1 to 24 had filed complaint alleging deficiency in service.

BRIEF facts of the case are that a group of 24 people desirous of travelling to Thailand and Singapore approached respondent No. 25 M/s. Gita Travels and Tours (Pvt.) Ltd. , who in turn approached the appellant, M/s. Stic Travels (P) Ltd. , who are the official agent of respondent No. 26 - Thai Airways. Confirmed tickets were issued by the appellant as agent of Thai Airways with the following itinerary: (i) Delhi - Bangkok : TG-316, Dept. at 0010 31. 10. 1995 (ii) Bangkok - Pattaya by bus the same evening. Two nights stay at Pattaya in Hotel Balyoka. (iii) Pattaya to Bangkok by bus on 2. 11. 1995. Two nights at Bangkok (2 and 3. 11. 1995) at Hotel White Orchid. (iv) Bangkok to Singapore by TRG-403 : at 8. 35 Dep. 4. 11. 1995. Reaching Singapore at 11. 00 a. m. local time-Singapore stay was at hotel Grand Central for 4. 11. 1995 night. (v) The last leg booking - i. e. , Singapore to Delhi was made and confirmed by SQ-408, leaving Singapore at 18. 40 on 5. 11. 1995, reaching Delhi at 21. 45.

When the complainants reached Singapore, it is only there that they were told on 4. 11. 1995 i. e. , a day before the commencement of return journey that return tickets are not confirmed. Finally with some help from Thai Airways local agent, 11 of the group of 24 complainants flew out on 5th by a different flight and following a different route i. e. , instead of coming to Delhi they landed at Bombay and came to Delhi on 6th November, 1995. The remainder 13 could come to Delhi only on 6th November, 1995.

It is these circumstances that complaint came to be filed by the complainants alleging deficiency in service on the ground that return seats were not confirmed but they were issued tickets with a sticker stating status of journey ''ok''. Re-routing and extra days stay in ''singapore cost them a lot, besides undergoing mental agony in a foreign country of being uncertain as to when will they reach back Delhi. It was particularly agonising for the 13 complainants from outside Delhi (from places like Lucknow, Kanpur, Jaipur, Jodhpur, etc.) as they lost out on return home connections by train, etc. for which they had to pay extra charges to travel home. The State Commission after hearing the parties found the appellant and respondent 25, Gita Travel and Tours (Pvt.) Ltd. deficient and directed them to pay jointly and severally Rs. 5,000 to each of the complainants. Complaint against respondent 26 was dismissed.

APPEAL against this order has been filed by the appellant who was opposite party-2 before the State Commission. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainants have no locus standi to file a complaint against the appellant as there has been no privity of contract between them. The complainants were wait- listed and shown as such - who had put up the sticker showing status of the journey as ''ok'' is not known to them, but in any case they had not done so, hence for any delay in Singapore they cannot be held liable. In this connection she drew our attention to the copy of the tickets with a seal of "stic Travels". It was her case that they had not done so. It was the job of the Airline to issue the tickets showing correct status. We had shown it as wait listed as per the computer chart. Our attention was also drawn towards a message Annexure ''g'' which reads as follows: rmks - SPL Q1- TQ -JPW46q SPEIt 02 TO JUBVWY "abv GRP OF 24 PSGE PLUS 2 PSGRS IN PNR JUBVY HOLDING TKTS 217 4406675453 - 479 FOR THE ROUTE DEL TO BKK TG SIN S DEL STP AS SQ UNABLE CFM THIS IS YR AUTH TO ENDRS/rerte TO ANY CARRIER PROVIDE GRP TRVLS TOGETHER STP BRGDS KUMUD IF REQD PLS RERTE SINDEL AS SIN BKK DEL STP BRODS. "

There is also a hand written note on the message which reads as follows: "attn : DENISE herewith PLS FIND TG AUTHORISATION TO ENDORSE TO ANY CARRIER. PLEASE DO THE NEEDFULL. THANKS sd/-"

WE do not know who has written this note. There has been no deficiency on our part, hence the order of the State Commission cannot be sustained, hence need to be set aside. On the other hand it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that tickets were made by the appellant, visas were obtained by them. As per material on record, visa could not be issued for Singapore, unless return journey is conformed. Annexure ''g'' was issued after the complainants had left Delhi. Tickets were delivered to them at the Airport by the appellant, hence the endorsement by way of Seal of Stic Travels and Tours now being disowned by the appellant, would have been put up by them only. There is no merit in the appeal filed before this Commission, hence needs to be dismissed with costs. There was only a delay of 26 days in filing the appeal. We have considered the application filed for condonation of delay and are satisfied that sufficient grounds exists for condoning the delay. Delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned. We have heard the arguments and perused the material and evidence on record. We are in no doubt that the appellant was rendering service to the complainants. Tickets were issued by them, visas were obtained by them, travel arrangements were finalised by them. Material on record in the form of evidence is that Thai Airways did not confirm the return journey Singapore - Delhi on 5th November, 1995. It is also a fact, as per record, that Singapore High Commission in Delhi would not issue visa in the absence of confirmed return ticket. Visa was obtained, and as per record tickets show the status of return journey ''ok'' which means return journey is confirmed. It has the seal of the appellant on it. The appellant wishes us to believe its plea that the sticker and the seal were not pasted/stamped by them. It is admitted position that tickets were delivered by the appellant to the complainants at the Airport few hours before departure for Bangkok. The appellant shall be really testing our imagination if it wishes us to believe that the complainants were carrying sticker of Thai Airways and seal of the appellant with them at the Airport. There has to be a limit of such ludicrous stand/plea taken on the part of appellant. We have no doubt that keeping in view the facts of circumstances of the case, it was only the appellant who did so himself to obtain visa from the Singapore High Commission and to pocket charges in this regard. In our view we are testified by the affidavit filed by Mr. Nand Kumar Pandey of Thai Airways. Tickets are issued by their agents. Stickers on the tickets are also affixed by the agents as per instruction. In this case record shows that Thai Airways kept the return journey wait - listed, but somebody, in this case-no one else but the appellant-who have stickers with them-affixed it to perhaps facilitate obtaining a visa for Singapore. To make the people travel on a confirmed ticket, when in fact it was not so, would be a clear case of deficiency on the part of appellant. Annexure ''g'' on which the appellant wishes to rely upon in defence is issued after the complainants had left the shores of the country. The contents of the message was not within their knowledge.

IN the light of above discussions, we have no hesitation in stating that the appellant was rendering services to the complainants and he was found deficient. We see no merit in the appeal, hence dismissed with costs which we fix at Rs. 5,000. Appeal dismissed.