PRESENT: Sh.Vishal Bali, Adv. for the Complainant.

         Sh.R.S. Khural, Adv. for OPs No. 1 & 2.

           Col. Malvinder Singh Guron, Director of OP No.4.

           OPs No. 3 & 5 Ex-parte.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, Sh. Roopinder Singh- Complainant No. 2, being the father of Sh. Ranjot Singh - Complainant No. 1, got one confirmed E-ticket booked through OP No. 4 (Sub-Dealer) of OP No. 3 on 09.07.2008 of Air India Flight for Complainant No. 1 for going to Melbourne on 10/07/2008 and to return back on 16/12/2008, from Melbourne to New Delhi. The Complainants paid Rs.53,981/- and Ticket No. ETKT0985741819317, having PNR No. AI/J4EWH of Air India Flight No. 7407, was booked in the name of Mr. Ranjot Singh, Complainant No. 1 for going to Melbourne on 10.07.2008 at 23:10 PM from New Delhi (Annexure C-1). It was alleged that when the Complainants and their other family members reached New Delhi Airport from Chandigarh on 10.07.2008, in the evening, then Complainant No. 1 reported at Air India Airlines Counter, but the Officials present at the counter asked Mr. Ranjot Singh (Complainant No. 1) to report at Singapore Airlines Counter, as Singapore Airlines was an alliance airlines of Air India for going to Melbourne. On reaching Singapore Airlines counter, the officials of Singapore Airlines told the Complainants that there is no confirmation of the said ticket as per their records and hence, Complainant No. 1 could not be given Boarding Pass and further, asked the Complainants to contact the Air India counter and like this Complainant No. 1 was denied boarding the flight. In utter shock, the Complainants immediately contacted Air India office and got the status checked up, which showed that the said ticket purchased by the Complainant No. 2 for his son (Complainant No.1) was a confirmed ticket. Thereafter, the Duty Officer present at the counter of Air India went to check the status at Singapore Airlines counter, but the Officials present there told the Duty Officer that flight is heavily booked and they don’t have any seat and hence, complaint No. 1 cannot be allowed to board the flight. Ultimately, on 11.07.2008, i.e. the next day, the Complainant No. 2 was forced to buy another ticket of some other Airlines and that too at a higher price of Rs.73,850/- for Complainant No. 1 (Annexure C-2), as he was to reach Melbourne within two days and report there for some urgent work. It was alleged that when the OPs No. 1 & 2 were requested to refund the amount of the ticket, as Complainant No. 1 was not allowed to board the flight, they only agreed to pay some amount after deducting the commission of the Agent etc. A legal notice dated 11.09.2008 was also served upon the OPs, but to no avail. It was further averred that a belated vague reply dated 03.11.2008 was sent by OP No. 1 to the counsel for the Complainants wherein OPs have admitted that Complainant No. 1 was not allowed to board the Flight on 10.07.2008 (Annexure C-7) and accordingly, a refund was made to the Complainant by deducting commission of Rs.1550/-. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. OPs No. 3 and 5 did not turn up despite due service of notice, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

3]      OPs No. 1 & 2 in their joint written statement/reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that Complainants failed to substantiate by placing on record evidence that OP No. 4 was Sub-Dealer of OP No. 3, through whom the e-ticket was booked. The Bill No. 118, dated 09 July, 2008 for Rs.54,420/- was issued by AVS Group Travel and Tours and not by M/s Interface Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, the amount of Rs.54,545/- was deposited in the account of M/s Interface Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd., but the bill was issued by AVS Group Tours & Travels. The Sub-Dealers were not authorized by them to issue e-tickets. The Complainants were not consumers qua OPs No. 1 & 2 as the flight was operated by Singapore Airlines and OPs No. 1 & 2 were facilitators as marketing carriers.  It was further pleaded that since the Complainant No. 1 could not board the booked flight of Singapore Airlines on 10.07.2008, the OPs No. 1 & 2 as goodwill gesture refunded the amount without any refund charges leviable. It was submitted that OPs NO. 1 & 2 were not liable to refund of service charges recovered by the booking agent, or sub-dealer, impleaded as OP No. 4. Further OP No. 4, in their reply had stated that the full amount of Rs.54,545/- was refunded in cash to the Complainant. While admitting the receipt of legal notice dated 11.9.2008 on behalf of the Complainant No.2, it was asserted that the same was suitably replied on 03.11.2008. The denial of seat by Singapore Airlines in flights on 10.7.2008 was beyond the control of the answering OPs.  The Complainant instead of approaching the OPs No.1 & 2 or Singapore Airlines to provide alternative flight, opted for flight of their liking without approaching for next available flight. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4]      OP No. 4 in their reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that they being Sub-Dealer of OP No. 3 had just issued the confirmed e-ticket to Complainant No. 1 and it was the duty of the Airlines to provide seat and issue boarding pass to Complainant No. 1, hence they were not at all deficient in providing any service to the Complainants. It was asserted that no commission was deducted and full amount of Rs.54,545/- was refunded in cash to the Complainant. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

5]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the Complainant and OP No. 1, 2 & 3. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainants that the Complainant No. 2, being the father of Shri Ranjot Singh – Complainant No. 1, got one confirmed e-ticket booked from OP No. 4 (Sub-Dealer) of OP No. 3 on 09.07.2008 of Air India Flight for Complainant No. 1 for going to Melbourne (Australia) on 10.07.2008 and to return on 16.12.2008 from Melbourne to New               Delhi, have all been admitted . Accordingly, the Complainants paid Rs.53,981/- and Ticket No. ETKT0985741819317, having PNR No. AI/J4EWH of Air India Flight No. 7407, was booked in the name of Mr. Ranjot Singh, Complainant No. 1 for going from New Delhi to Melbourne on 10.07.2008 at 23:10 PM from New Delhi. The allegation of the Complainant No.1 against the OPs is that when he and members of his family reached New Delhi Airport from Chandigarh on 10.7.2008 in the evening and reported at the Air India Airlines counter, they told him to report at Singapore Airlines counter, as Singapore Airlines was an alliance Airlines of Air India for going to Melbourne. But on reaching Singapore Airlines counter, the officials of the Singapore Airlines told him that there is no confirmation of the said ticket as per their records and hence, he could not be given a boarding pass. He was further advised to go back to Air India counter and in the entire process, Complainant No. 1 was denied boarding the flight. When the Complainant again contacted the Air India office to check the status of the ticket booked by him, he was told that he had a confirmed ticket, but finally, the Singapore Airlines told Air India officials that they were already heavily booked for the said flight and did not have a seat for the Complainant No.1. As per the Complainant, since he was not allowed to board the flight on 10.07.2008, he was compelled to buy another ticket of some other airlines at a price of Rs.73,850/- and he boarded the said flight the next day i.e. 11.07.2008, as he was required to reach Melbourne within 02 days for some urgent work. Subsequently, the Complainant asked for the refund of the amount, as he was denied boarding the flight and OP No. 4, who had booked the ticket on behalf of OP No. 3 for the Complainants, refunded the amount after deducting the Agent’s Commission of Rs.1550/-. 

ii] The main grievance of the Complainants against the OPs is that despite having a confirmed e-ticket, the Complainant No. 1 was not allowed to board the flight to go to Melbourne, which caused him immense harassment and financial loss, as he had to buy another air ticket of a different airlines at a much higher price and in the process, he had also to postpone his departure by one more day, so as to reach Melbourne within a period of 02 days to attend to some urgent work.  The contention of the OPs in their written statement/ reply is that the e-ticket against Bill No. 118, dated 9^th July, 2008, for Rs.54,420/- was issued by AVS Group Travel and Tours and not by M/s Interface Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. Since M/s AVS Group Travel and Tours were only Sub-Dealers of M/s Interface Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd., they were not allowed to issue e-tickets. The OPs have also taken some preliminary objections in respect of the status of Complainant No. 2 as a consumer qua OP No. 1 & 2. Another contention of the OPs No. 1 & 2 is that the concerned flight missed by Complainant No. 1 was being operated by Singapore Airlines and OPs No. 1 & 2 were only facilitators as Marketing Carriers and further, when the Singapore Airlines could not accommodate the Complainant on 10.07.2008, the full amount of air ticket paid by the Complainants was refunded to them, without deducting even the refund charges i.e. the full sum of Rs.54,545/- was refunded in cash to the Complainant. The OPs have further alleged that the Complainant should have approached either OPs No. 1 & 2 or Singapore Airlines to provide an alternative flight, but he opted for a flight of his own liking of some other airlines, without availing the next available flight of the OPs. On these grounds, the OPs say that there is no deficiency of service on their part. 

iii] A detailed analysis of the entire case shows that the Complainants have done all, as was required for them in the sense that they had paid the full amount of the ticket in advance and also obtained a confirmed e-ticket, for traveling from New Delhi to Melbourne on 10.07.2008. This fact was confirmed not only by the Dealer/Sub Dealer of OPs No. 1 & 2, but also by OPs No. 1 & 2 themselves on the day of the flight i.e. 10.07.2008, at the New Delhi Airport. Therefore, the Complainant was not required to seek any further confirmation from any one in respect of the proposed flight. It is another matter that OPs No. 1 & 2 had some arrangement with Singapore Airlines, they themselves acting as Marketing Carrier on “Code Sharing Basis” and treating Singapore Airlines as the Operating Airlines. In any case, the Complainant is not concerned what internal arrangement OPs No. 1 & 2 had made with Singapore Airlines (OP No. 5). The Complainants paid money in full to OP No. 4, who are the Director Agents/ Dealers of OPs No. 1& 2. OP No. 4 had further authorized AVS Group Travel and Tours to issue the confirmed e-ticket to the Complainant, which they had done.

iv]  Another plea taken by OP No. 1 & 2 that it is clearly mentioned in the ticket docket, as well as the website that times shown in for flight is not guaranteed and form no part of the contract. In support of their contention, they have quoted Condition No. 9 of the Contract of  Travel, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“The Condition No. 9 of contract of travel printed on the ticket specifically states that “Carrier undertakes to use its best efforts to carry the passenger and baggage with reasonable dispatch. Times shown in timetables or elsewhere are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. Carrier may without notice substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, and may alter or omit stopping places shown on the ticket in case of necessity. Schedules are subject to change without notice. Carrier assumes no responsibility for making connections.”

v]  The OPs No. 1 & 2 further say that the contract to carry Complainant No.1 in the booked flight was with Singapore Airlines and, therefore, they are not responsible, if there is any lapse on the part of Singapore Airlines. This argument of OPs No. 1 & 2 is just not tenable, as it has been established by a number of authorities that the Principal is fully liable for the acts of omission and commission of the Agent. In this connection, there is an authority by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, clearly stating that Air India (Petitioner) was liable for the negligence of the Agent. The head note of the said authority is quoted below:-

         “III (2003) CPJ 123 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW, DELHI.

AIR INDIA

----- Petitioner

VERSUS

HARPREET SINGH

---- Respondent

Revision Petition No. 1231 of 2003 – Decided on 2.5.2003.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) – Airlines – Deficiency in service – Complainant having confirmed ticket, issued by Travel Agent, denied boarding – Compensation awarded by Forum, upheld by State Commission – Hence revision – Contention, Air India not liable for fault of agent – Contention against basic principle of law, and Contract Act – Air India liable for negligence of agent – Passenger not required to re-confirm okay ticket within 72 hours of purchase – Deficiency in service proved – Orders of lower Forums upheld  (Para 4).

Result: Revision Petition dismissed.” 

vi] In another case of Indian Airlines Ltd. & Anr. Versus Dr. Savita Malhotra and Ors., the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, had dismissed a Revision Petition, in which the lower Fora had awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/- with costs of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the District Forum, which was upheld in the Appeal at the State Commission, although in that case, the flight being full due to over booking, boarding passes were not issued, but the Complainants were provided seats for the next flight with hotel accommodation. The head note of the said authority is quoted below:-

         “2009 (2) CPC 646

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW, DELHI.

Revision Petition No.700 of 2005

Indian Airlines Limited & Anr.

----- Petitioners

VERSUS

Dr. Savita Malhotra & Ors.

---- Respondents

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) – Air flight – Complainant purchased confirmed air tickets for flight on Delhi – Ranchi route – Flight being full due to over booking boarding passes were not issued but Complainant were provided seats for next flight with hotel accommodation – District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- with cost of Rs.3,000/- which was upheld in appeal – Taking into view the decision delivered in M/s Unique Trader’s case decided on 21.03.2002, compensation awarded by Fora below cannot be construed to be on higher side – Revision stands dismissed.                (Paras 7-8-9)

Cases Referred:-

1. M/s Air France V/s M/s Unik Traders, First Appeal No. 518 of 1995, decided on 21.3.2002.”

7]      Keeping in view the above stated detailed analysis of the entire case, it is beyond an iota of doubt that the OPs, especially OPs No. 1 & 2, have been deficient in service qua the Complainants and have also indulged in unfair trade practice by denying their liability for the acts of omission and commission on the part of their Agent. The Principal cannot just get away by shifting the liability for negligence and consequent deficiency in service first to a sister airlines i.e. Singapore Airlines and later to their own Agent i.e. OP No. 3/4. It is a matter entirely inter se among the Opposite Parties and the Complainants have nothing to do with it. If at all, OPs No. 1 & 2 have to sort the issue, they can do so amongst themselves i.e. OPs No. 1 & 2 on the one side and OPs No. 3 to 5 on the other. The Complainants have no role to play in all this. It is absolutely clear that the Complainants have not got an efficient, fair and good service, which they deserved and were entitled to from OPs No. 1 & 2, after making full payment for the e-ticket in advance to OP No.4, for which they must be adequately compensated. As such, the present complaint has a lot of weight, merit and substance. We, therefore, decide the complaint in favour of the Complainants and against the OPs. So far as the status of Complainant No.2 as a “Consumer” is concerned, it was categorically stated during arguments as well as in the averments/ pleadings of the Complainants that the entire payment for the ticket was paid by Complainant No. 2 on behalf of Complainant No. 1, who is in fact the beneficiary in the present case. Therefore, the status of Complainant No. 2, as a “Consumer”, in any case cannot be questioned or challenged.

8]      Keeping in view the above, we pass the following orders.

        The OPs, jointly and severally, shall make the following payments to the Complainants:-

(i) The sum of Rs.1550/- as the amount deducted by the OPs at the time of making refund of the price of the e-ticket paid by the Complainants at the time of issuance of ticket.

(ii) The difference in price of the new ticket i.e. Rs.19,869/-, which the Complainant had to purchase on the spot for another flight after the OPs had denied him the boarding pass for taking the flight of Singapore Airlines on 10.07.2008.

(iii) To pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant, on account of denial of seat in the flight of Singapore Airlines on 10.07.2008, and also on account of forcing the Complainants to postpone the flight by one day for 11.07.2008.

(iv) The OPs shall pay litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainants.

9]      The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 04 weeks from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall pay the sum of Rs.71,419/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date on which the Complainant was denied the boarding pass i.e. 10.07.2008, till the date of realization, besides paying the cost of litigation at Rs.5,000/-.

10]    Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.