Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The Appeal originates out of the order dated 31-07-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit II in C.C. No. 36/2013.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, Complainants thereof have filed this Appeal.

Case of the Complainant, in short, is that he booked an air ticket of the OP Airlines through IRCTC website on 18-12-2012 for his intended journey from Port Blair to Kolkata on 21-01-2013.  Although the concerned Electronic Reservation Slip generated through the said website contained all relevant information, such as, flight no., date of journey, route, passenger details, amount, baggage rules of the airline, there was no mention of reporting time for passengers at the airport.  On due date, the Complainant, along with his other family members reached the airport at 11.05 a.m.  However, officials of the OP airlines refused to issue Boarding Passes to him; they also allegedly refused to make any alternative arrangement or refund the money to him.  Finding no other alternative, the Complainant had to book on-spot air ticket of another airlines at a higher consideration.  Being subjected to such humiliation, mental pain and agony, Complainant filed the instant complaint before the Ld. District Forum.

Per contra, case of the OP Nos. 3,4 and 5, is that, since the cause of action arose at Port Blair, the Ld. District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint.  It is further stated that the electronic reservation slip mentioned that for accessing all rules and regulations, the purchaser can call the given number or check in the official site of the airline concerned.  The Complainant could have viewed the E-ticket after getting the PNR number from the website of the OP airline.  The flight was scheduled to depart Port Blair at 11:45 a.m. on 21-01-2013.  The Complainant reached the check-in counter of the OP airline at 11:20 a.m., i.e., 25 minutes before the schedule departure time.  As per Government guidelines, check-in counter at all airports close 40 minutes before the schedule departure time.  Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs over their refusal to issue boarding pass to the Complainant.  Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The moot point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from any infirmity, or not.

Decision with reasons

Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines the jurisdiction of District Forum.  For better illustration relevant portion of this said Section is appended below:-

“11.        Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ''does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. 

(2)   A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a)     the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b)     any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)     the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”.

A plain reading of the aforesaid Section makes no bones of the fact that a complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually carries on business or has a branch office.  The office of the Respondent No. 2 being situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum, the Ld. District Forum was fully empowered to adjudicate the instant complaint.  Objection of the Appellants in this regard is thus not tenable.

Coming to the issue of delayed reporting at the check-in counter by the Respondent No. 1, it is argued by the Respondent No. 1 that in the Electronic Reservation Slip, there was no mention of the check-in time at the airport.  Although the Appellants have not disputed such fact, they wondered as to why the Respondent did not visit their official website to have a fair idea about dos and don’ts of air travel. 

To be fair to the Respondent No. 1, while relevant information like flight no., departure time, passenger details, baggage rules etc. were mentioned quite prominently in the Electronic Reservation Slip, and more so, when it was categorically mentioned that print out of the said e-ticket was suffice to undertake the journey, one wonders, why one would refer to the official website of the airline concerned unless any exigency arises otherwise. 

It also transpires from the impugned order that on an RTI query from the side of the Respondent No. 1, he was intimated vide letter no. 2010/IRCTC/ HRD/RTI/1809 dated 18-05-2013 that the said rule was not in force at the time of booking of the tickets, but it was implemented subsequently on and from 27-02-2013.  That being the undisputed position, finding fault with the Respondent No. 1 is totally unjustified.

It is always desirable that salient features of an air ticket would be precisely mentioned on the Electronic Reservation Slip itself to avoid unnecessary confusion.  Evidently, this was not done.  The settled position of law being that principal should be squarely held responsible for every act of omission and commission on the part of its agent.  In our considered view, insofar as the check-in time was not mentioned in the Electronic Reservation Slip issued by the IRCTC, the Appellants cannot avoid due liability for the harassment meted out to the Respondent No. 1 and his family members.

Seen against this backdrop, the impugned order does not appear to be suffering from any sort of infirmity.  However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the award for punitive damages @ Rs. 100/- per diem appears to be too harsh, hence the same is hereby struck off.    

Appeal, thus, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that A/1112/2014 be and the same is allowed ex parte in part against the Respondent No. 1.  The impugned order is modified to the extent that the award for punitive damages is hereby struck off.  The Appellants are directed to comply with the order within 45 days hence.