MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER 1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 10.2.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 777 of 2008. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainants alongwith husband and minor son of Smt.Ravinder Kaur, complainant No.1 had booked air tickets on 7.6.2006 for traveling from New Delhi to London, on 24.6.2006 from London to New York and booked on 18.7.2006 from Dullas to New Delhi with 10 hours stay at New York through OP No.1. They were told that each passenger could carry two suit cases weighing 32 Kgm each and one cabin trolley 8 ½ kgm. each throughout their journey. The complainants traveled comfortably from New Delhi to London and London to New York but on the way back when they reached Dullas Airport, they were told that each of them could carry only 50 pound in each suit case instead of 32 kgm and they were further told that the coupon from Dullas to New York in the name of complainant No.2 had been torned by mistake by the respondent No.1 alongwith coupon of London to New York and at that time Air India was unable to send the coupon in such a short time. The U.A Airlines were not allowed the complainant No.2 to board the flight and as such a new ticket was purchased for complainant No.2. It was submitted by the complainants that they were also informed to reduce their luggage to 50 pounds per bag or pay 50 dollars for each pound of extra luggage. As per version of complainant No.2, this visit was for special purpose to collect the necessary material available related to Sikh History from the countries and therefore complainant No.2 visited various libraries in U.K, researched old manuscripts and got photocopies made but hurriedly to take out the luggage from the suit cases, he lost even his research material and camera rolls. The above said act of OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed. 3. Reply filed by OP No.1 pleaded that all the allegations have been leveled against UA Airlines but the complainant had not impleaded UA Airlines as a party. It was denied that the complainants were told that they could carry two suit cases weighing 32 kg. each and cabin baggage/trolley throughout their journey and denied that the answering OP told them that they could carry 50 pound in each suitcase. It was also denied that the complainants were asked to reduce their luggage or to pay 50 dollar for excess luggage and complainant No.2 was asked to purchase new tickets. It was submitted that he himself lost his ticket and no liability for the negligence of the complainant can be fastened on it. Hence, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering OP and denied all the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint solely on the ground of misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties as well as on merit also. 4. Reply was filed by OP No.2 and admitted that the complainants had booked confirmed ticket through it but it was pleaded that the matter with regard to denial of 32 kgs. baggage to each of them was inter se complainants and OP No.1 and OP No.2 had nothing to do with the same. All the material allegations made by the complainant in the complaint have been denied and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions. 6. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint as the allegations leveled by the complainants are mainly against UA Airlines but they have not been impleaded as a necessary party on the ground of misjoinder or nonjoinder and not only this, even due to absence of any cogent evidence or document thereby proving the allegations as made in the complaint. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. 8. It has been submitted by the appellant that the order passed by the learned District Forum is based on surmises and conjectures and not appreciated the facts and the law. The learned District Forum has wrongly and illegally held that the appellant failed to show any evidence and such record on file that the said trip was for the purpose of collecting research material and list of books written by complainant was also placed on record. The learned District Forum did not bother to consider it worthwhile to look into this crucial evidence placed on record in support of these averments by the appellant. The learned District Forum has wrongly held that UA Airlines has not been impleaded as a party but this fact has also no relevance as the OPs themselves admitted that respondent No.1 has internal arrangement with UA Airlines. The respondent No.1 airline has received Rs.2,23,300/- from the appellants through its agent respondent No.2 M/s Shergill Travels and appellants have no where dealt with UA Airlines, so no question arises to implead UA Airlines as party as service of Air India were hired and appellants at the time of booking had no link with UA. It has been submitted by the appellant that the coupon of appellant No.2 was also torn by respondent No.1 and on this account respondent No.1 is also liable. The learned District Forum has wrongly held that due to misjoinder of parties and due to lack of evidence the complaint is dismissed which is totally erroneous and illegal as the sufficient material to prove the case was placed before the learned District Forum and prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed. 9. We have heard Smt.Anju Arora, Advocate for the appellant, Sh.R.S.Khurana, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sh.Dinesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2 and carefully gone through the file. The main point for consideration before us is whether Air India liable for the act of UA Airlines. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, we have come to the conclusion that the whole grievance of the appellant is against the UA Airlines. It is pertinent to mention that an affidavit was filed by the Manager of respondent No.1 regarding the reply to the application for placing on record additional evidence by the complainant on 16.1.2009 in which the Manager of Air India vehemently denied that the luggage at Dullas was not booked with Air India as this flight was not operated by Air India, rather the appellant boarded the domestic flight of UA Airlines from Dullas to New York and after the stay of 10 hours at New York the appellant boarded international flight of Air India from New York to Delhi. In this view of the matter, OP No.1 cannot be held liable for the act done by some other airlines as there is nothing on file to show that the Air India has any collaboration or alliance with the UA Airlines as alleged by the complainant. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit. 11. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. Pronounced. 17th March, 2010.
| | , | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
