V.K.S. ADIGAL vs PRIME TRAVELS

THE complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). THE case of the complainant, briefly stated, is that the son of the complainant is a Non-Resident-Indian based at Chicago, USA. His marriage had been arranged by his parents i.e. the complainant and his family with a well-educated girl from Trinvandrum i.e. Ms. Sreelakshmi Narayanan. THE said wedding was duly solemnised and the newly married couple were to return to Chicago together on 20.2.2001. THE son of the complainant as per his programme had already got his return ticket confirmed from Delhi to Chicago on Air India Flight No. A1-123 scheduled to depart from Delhi on 20.2.2001 at 6.05 a.m. Accordingly the complainant purchased a ticket for his daughter-in-law, Ms. Sreelakshmi Narayanan, on 18.12.2000 through O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, so that the newly wed bride could accompany her husband on the same flight. On the assurance of O.P. Nos.1 and 2 that the daughter-in-law of the complainant would be issued a confirmed ticket of the same flight of Air India by which his son would be travelling, the complainant made the requisite payment and purchased a ticket which was assured to be a confirmed ticket on the flight No. A1-123 for Chicago. However in order to confirm the status of the seat booked for his daughter-in-law the complainant approached O.P. No. 3, the office of Air India on 19.2.2001 i.e. one day prior to the date of departure. It was revealed on verification at the counter of O.P. No. 3 that no such name existed in the list of passengers scheduled to travel by the Flight No. A1- 123 on 20.2.2001 and that the ticket was fictitious. Accordingly the complainant rushed to O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 who again assured the complainant that the ticket was genuine and that the daughter-in-law of the complainant would be able to travel by the said confirmed ticket as per schedule. Going by the above said assurance of O.Ps. 1 and 2, the complainant, alongwith his family and relatives, reached the airport to see off the newly married couple. However the daughter-in-law of the complainant was not allowed to board the flight in question on 20.2.2001 on account of the fact that her name was not listed in the list of passengers for the aforesaid flight. As such the daughter-in-law of the complainant had to bid a tearful farewell to her husband and all the relatives and friends of the complainant including his family had to suffer the inconvenience and embarrassment of the situation on account of the fraudulent and illegal acts of the O.Ps. As such the complainant filed the present complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- as compensation for the loss and damages suffered by him and his family together with interest @ 18% per annum, as well as, cost of the present proceedings.

NOTICE of the present appeal was served to O.Ps 1 and 2 only and one Ms. Kavita Saini, Advocate appeared on behalf for the said O.Ps. on 15.10.2001 with a request for grant of further time for filing reply/written version. However since none appeared on behalf of the O.Ps on the next date of hearing nor filed any reply/written version, the O.Ps. were proceeded ex parte vide orders/proceedings dated 3.5.2002. The complainant filed his own affidavit by way of evidence, accompanied by the relevant documents, in support of the averments made in the complaint.

We have carefully perused the evidence/documents and material on record, as well as, have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant. The version of facts as stated by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record. Furthermore, the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 in their reply to the legal notice dated 3.3.2001 (which is placed on record as Annexure-V to the complaint) has admitted in para 4, that the daughter-in-law of the complainant could not travel on the ticket issued by them. However the reason assigned for the same is that the booking had been cancelled by O.P. No. 3 on 19.2.2001 i.e. one day prior to the scheduled date of departure, in pursuance of its general practice whereby an airlines can cancel confirmed tickets at the last minute with reasonable notice to the passenger for which the airlines is not liable to the passenger. The abovesaid averment made by the O.P. in its reply to the legal notice of the complainant, is belied by the documents placed on record by the complainant (Exhibit C-2D to the affidavit of the complainant filed by way of evidence), which specifically mentions that the booked ticket was cancelled on account of the fact that the ticket number was fictitious and that the same fact had been duly communicated by the airlines O.P. No. 3 to M/s. Prime Travels O.P. Nos.1 and 2. The said document takes the bottom out of case of the O.P. that the ticket booked by the complainant for his daughter-in-law was cancelled in routine by the O.P. No. 3. It is thus apparent that the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 had indulged in unfair trade practice in issuing fictitious ticket to the complainant on account of which his newly married daughter-in-law was unable to accompany her husband to Chicago. Since the facts on record have not been rebutted by the O.Ps. we hold the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and as such the said O.Ps. are liable to compensate the complainant for the same. However the complainant has not furnished any details or break up for the compensation claimed nor has led any evidence in that regard. As such, the ends of justice would be sufficed if an amount Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the complainant towards compensation and costs.

ACCORDINGLY the present complaint, filed by the complainant, is allowed with the directions to the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant, as compensation and cost of present proceedings, within 45 days of the receipt of this order, failing which the O.P. shall be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amount, @ 9% per annum, from the date of the receipt of this order till actual payment. The present complaint, filed by the complainant, stands disposed of in above terms. Complaint disposed of.