Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/69/2019

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Alpha Travel House - Opp.Party(s)

Harinder Kumar Adv.

05 Dec 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.	:	69 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	10.04.2019
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2019

Gurpreet Singh son of Gurmeet Singh, resident of House No.338, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.     

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Alpha Travel House, SCO No. 107-108, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Prop./Manager/MD.
2. Jaskiran Singh, Prop/Manager/MD at Alpha Travels House, SCO No. 107-108, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

....Respondents/Opposite parties

BEFORE:              JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                  

Argued by:           Sh.Harinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Sh.Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                    The appellant/complainant has come up in this appeal by assailing order dated 16.01.2019, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum) vide which the consumer complaint filed by him was dismissed.

2.           Succinctly stated, the respondents/opposite parties are dealing with the booking of air tickets and arranging travel tours etc. under the name and style “Alpha Travel House”. The appellant is their customer since long time and used to purchase air e-tickets from them. On 28.09.2017, he purchased e-tickets bearing no.0981999489751, 0981999489752 and 0981999489753 (C-5 to C-7) of flight Air India from Tullamarine Airport (Melbourne) (departure 10.45 a.m.) to Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport (arrival 5.40 pm) and also return tickets dated 06.05.2018 from Delhi to Tullamarine Airport (Melbourne) for his relatives, for a total sum of Rs.1,10,500/-. He paid entire amount to the agent of the opposite parties and the tickets were confirmed.
3.           The appellant and his relatives were taken aback when they noticed that above said e-tickets were cancelled by the respondents on the very next date i.e. 29.09.2017. When the appellant approached the respondents confirming the reason for cancelation of the e-tickets, no satisfactory reply was given by them. Even the amount deposited with the respondents has not been returned. The instant consumer complaint has been filed alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents.
4.           Upon notice, joint written reply was filed by the respondents, wherein it was pleaded that the alleged consideration amount has never been paid to them, rather the same has been deposited in the account of one ISH Travels which has nothing to do with them.
5.           The parties led evidence, in support of their case before the Forum. However, the Forum on analysis of the pleadings; documents on record and arguments addressed by the contesting parties, dismissed the consumer complaint, by observing as under:-

“…..“Evidently, as per Annexure C-9, the Complainant paid the alleged amount of Rs.1,10,500/- on 28.09.2017 to ISH Travels through NEFT. However, perusal of the Complaint clearly reveals that the said ISH Travels is neither impleaded as party in the present Complaint in whose bank account the alleged transfer has been done by the Complainant, nor it has been proved on record that the said ISH Travels is related to Opposite Parties in any manner. Moreover, the Opposite Parties have categorically stated in their written statement that they have got no concern/connection with the said ISH Travels. In these set of circumstances, we are of the concerted opinion that ISH Travels as shown in Annexure C-9 seems to be a separate and distinct identity from the Opposite Parties. Even the Complainant could not prove through any document/evidence that he was ever asked by the Opposite Parties to deal with ISH Travels. Not only this, the Complainant has miserably failed to implead the bank holding the account of ISH Travels as a party where the alleged transfer by way of RTGS has been done by the Complainant in favour of ISH Travels.   Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

6.           Hence this appeal.
7.           Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Forum failed to appreciate that it has been in a very candid manner admitted by the respondents in their joint written reply to the effect that their employee namely Mr.Manish working in their office, dealing in the booking of airlines/train tickets, holiday packages etc. has received the entire amount for purchase of e-tickets. Thus, the respondents are liable, as their employee has received the entire amount and they themselves have confirmed the tickets; and that it was highly unfair on their part to cancel the e-tickets without giving any notice to the appellant.
8.           On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contended that the said Mr. Manish, an employee of the respondents, has defrauded many persons, by way of issuing tickets by receiving cash or by way of transfer in his account, under the name ISH Travels, due to which the respondents had lodged FIR no.0060 dated 21.02.2018 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against him at Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh; and that the respondents are not responsible for the acts and commissions of said Mr. Manish who has not deposited the amount received from the appellant for booking the above said e-tickets. Therefore, they are not liable for the same. According to him, the order dated 16.01.2019 does not suffer from any illegality & infirmity and as such, the same does not require interference.
9.           We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have gone through the record of the case very carefully.
10.           It is evident from the record that e-tickets (C-5  to C-7) in the names of Sumanpreet Kaur, Gursirat and Harpreet Kaur (relatives of the appellant) were purchased by the appellant, on 28.09.2017, for which amount of Rs.1,10,500/- was paid. This amount was paid by the complainant through NEFT-INDB0000284-ISH TRAVELS. It is depicted from the said e-tickets that the agency which issued the same is Alpha Travel House. Nothing is mentioned on the said e-tickets if those were issued by any other agency such as ISH Travels etc. These tickets were confirmed by the respondents. 
11.           Surprisingly, on previous occasion i.e. 25.07.2017, similar e-ticket no.0984996135068 (Annexure C-3) was purchased by the appellant from Alpha Travel House through the said Manish. That ticket was utilized.
12.           The e-tickets Annexure C-5 to C-7 are per se admissible into evidence and even during the course of arguments it is admitted that those e-tickets were cancelled by the respondents. Thus, onus is shifted upon the respondents to establish if their agent namely Manish failed to deposit any amount with them against these e-tickets but they miserably failed to discharge the same. 
13.           There is no dispute with regard to the fact that Mr. Manish was working as an employee of the respondents and was acting as a booking agent i.e. dealing with customers on behalf of the respondents, for booking of airlines/train tickets, holiday packages etc.  There is also no dispute that he collected money from the appellant, for booking of tickets for the journey to be performed by the passengers.  Infact, the money was transferred through the bank account of the appellant, through NEFT.  
14.           It has been argued by counsel for the respondents that because Mr. Manish did not deposit the amount received from the appellant with the Company, as such, the respondents cannot be held liable for the said illegal act committed by him.

                   We do not agree with the arguments raised. In the joint written reply it has been candidly stated by the respondents that they had lodged FIR no.0060 dated 21.02.2018 (ibid) against the said Mr.Manish. It may be stated here that advance booking of the tickets in dispute for journey on 24.03.2018 from Melbourne to Delhi and back on 06.05.2018 was made by Mr. Manish on 28.09.2017 and he received entire money being the employee and agent of the respondents. It is not the case of the respondents that said Mr.Manish acted beyond their authority.

                   Even if FIR was lodged against said Manish on 21.02.2018, and the air tickets were got booked by the appellant in September 2017, it could very well be said that at the relevant time Mr. Manish had been given authority by the respondents to do so till 21.02.2018 (the date of FIR against him).

                   It is settled law that a principal is responsible for the tortious acts of his agent pursuant to a doctrine known as respondeat superior ("let the master answer"). An individual is always liable for his/her own conduct, but, whenever an individual is held liable for the actions of another/principal, it is known as “vicarious liability” which has been engraved under the provisions of Section 237 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 which reads as under:-

237. Liability of principal inducing belief that agent’s unauthorized acts were authorized.—When an agent has, without authority, done acts or incurred obligations to third persons on behalf of his principal, the principal is bound by such acts or obligations, if he has by his words or conduct induced such third persons to believe that such acts and obligations were within the scope of the agent’s authority. —When an agent has, without authority, done acts or incurred obligations to third persons on behalf of his principal, the principal is bound by such acts or obligations, if he has by his words or conduct induced such third persons to believe that such acts and obligations were within the scope of the agent’s authority."

 

15.           In the present case, nothing has been established that during the relevant period of transaction in question, the employee/agent of the respondents, namely Mr.Manish has done any act in excess of his authority. Even if, the agent without authority did acts or incurred obligations on other persons, the principal is bound by such acts or obligations, in the same manner, if he has by his words or conduct induced such third persons to believe that such acts and obligations were within the scope of the agent’s authority. We have not been shown any statutory provision under which the respondents can be absolved of their responsibility for the acts of their agent when acting within the scope of their authority. Thus, the respondents cannot wriggle out of their liability.
16.           We are surprised to note that the Forum instead of culling out the material facts from the record, fell into an error, by holding otherwise. There was no need of impleading ISH Travels as necessary party to the consumer complaint, to come to any conclusion, especially in the face of candid admission of the respondents in their written reply that Mr.Manish was their employee. If the respondents being the principal failed to put a check on their employees/agents, then they cannot absolve themselves out of their liability. Furthermore, the Forum has ample powers to implead any person; a party in any complaint or proceedings, yet, it adopted a short cut method by dismissing the complaint, as a result whereof, genuine claim of the appellant has been defeated.  It is therefore held that the order passed by the Forum dismissing the consumer complaint suffers illegality, and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission and is liable to be set aside and reversed, whereas this appeal deserves to be accepted.
17.           In view of above, it is held that cancellation of the e-tickets (C-5 to C-7) by the respondents was certainly an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Thus, this act of the respondents caused a lot of mental agony, harassment and financial loss to the appellant as well as his family members, who were to perform the said journey, for which they are liable to be suitably compensated.  As such, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted with costs and the impugned order is set aside and reversed. Consequently, the respondents, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
    1. To refund the amount of Rs.1,10,500/- paid by the appellant towards e-tickets referred to above, alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of booking/payment made i.e. 28.09.2017, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amount thereafter shall carry  penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of default, till payment is made.
    2. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- for providing deficient services; adoption of unfair trade practice; causing mental agony, harassment and pain to the appellant and his family members and also cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.22,000/- within a period of 30 days, from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the said amount of Rs.25,000/-  and Rs.22,000/-  shall carry penal interest @9% p.a. from the date of default, till payment is made.
18.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  
19.           The appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

05.12.2019

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Rg