Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Ajay Kumar Saini has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  he had gone out of station with his family and had got  tickets reserved from the Terminal No.3 at Delhi, Indira Gandhi International Airport on Sat.25 June, 2016 for Flight No.AI 453 which was to be  departed from Delhi to Amritsar at 5 PM on 25.6.2016. The complainant alongwith his family reached to Airport, but to the utter surprise of the complainant without any intimation, the Opposite Party No.3 had cancelled the flight. No intimation was ever given by Opposite Party No.1 regarding the cancellation of the flight. The complainant suffered huge mental as well as physical tension and harassment without any fault on his part. The complainant after making great efforts arranged for train tickets from Delhi to Amritsar and reached Amritsar thereby the complainant suffered inconvenience and hardship at the hands of the Opposite Parties. The acts f the Opposite Parties  amounts to deficiency in service, inconvenience and it has caused mental agony, harassment and also amounts to unfair trade practice. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties  be directed to refund the whole ticket amount of Rs.24,000/- and interest thereon.

b)      Opposite Parties  may also be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.5 lacs besides the expenses of these litigation.

c)       Any other  relief to which the complainant may be found entitled may also be granted to him. 

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 appeared through counsel whereas Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 did not turn up despite due service, hence Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum.

3.       Opposite Party No.1 contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that  the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed as such. Actually, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 regarding issuance of tickets for himself and his family members and further to Bangkok of the journey for 25.6.2016 and also he same t ravel for onward journey from Bangkok, Phuket, Delhi to Amritsar. The answering Opposite Party booked the eight tickets and payments in consideration was received from the complainant. After that, the complainant left the office of Opposite Party No.1 and then never came back to Opposite Party No.1. The replying Opposite Party denied all the averments and allegations contained in the complaint except that are specifically admitted herein. The complainant itself stated in the complaint  that he had gone out of station and also flight time 5 PM from Delhi to Amritsar. Whereas the true facts are that the complainant had visited out of country ad the departure time of flight from Delhi to Amritsar was 5 AM. The complainant approached before Opposite Party No.1 on 14.6.2016 for issue of eight tickets for himself and his family members for travel to Delhi, Phuket and further to Bangkok of the journey schedule for 25.6.2016 and also the same eight for onward journey from Bangkok, Phuket to Dehi was also made on the basis of request made by the complainant, rest of the allegations levelled against Opposite Party No.1 are totally wrong and  vehemently denied. Opposite Party No.1 is an IATA approved travel agent, therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 can not be held responsible for the delay in operating the flight by Opposite Party No.2 since the function of the Opposite Party No.1 is very limited to the issue of the tickets as requested by the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as against Opposite Party No.1.Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2  to Ex.C4  and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Makan Singh Kohli, manager Ex.Op1/1, copy of ticket Ex.OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and submitted that he had gone out of station with his family and had got  tickets reserved from the Terminal No.3 at Delhi, Indira Gandhi International Airport on Sat.25 June, 2016 for Flight No.AI 453 which was to be  departed from Delhi to Amritsar at 5 PM on 25.6.2016. The complainant alongwith his family reached to Airport, but to the utter surprise of the complainant without any intimation, the Opposite Party No.3 had cancelled the flight. No intimation was ever given by Opposite Party No.1 regarding the cancellation of the flight. The complainant suffered huge mental as well as physical tension and harassment without any fault on his part. The complainant after making great efforts arranged for train tickets from Delhi to Amritsar and reached Amritsar thereby the complainant suffered inconvenience and hardship at the hands of the Opposite Parties.

8.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complainant approached before Opposite Party No.1 on 14.6.2016 for issue of eight tickets for himself and his family members for travel to Delhi, Phuket and further to Bangkok of the journey schedule for 25.6.2016 and also the same eight for onward journey from Bangkok, Phuket to Delhi was also made on the basis of request made by the complainant, rest of the allegations levelled against Opposite Party No.1 are totally wrong and  vehemently denied. Opposite Party No.1 is an IATA approved travel agent, therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 can not be held responsible for the delay in operating the flight by Opposite Party No.2 since the function of the Opposite Party No.1 is very limited to the issue of the tickets as requested by the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as against Opposite Party No.1. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 to contest and rebut the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint as well as in duly sworn affidavit produced on the record Ex.CW1/A. As such, Opposite Parties  have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint. As such, the only inference which can not be drawn under the circumstances would be that the complainant has suffered mental agony and physical pain on account of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the complainant is entitled to be adequately compensated.

9.       Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and loss occasioned by the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant is entitled to grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- from the Opposite Parties  jointly and severally while a sum of Rs.5,000/- is imposed upon the Opposite Parties on account of litigation expenses and the complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of passing of order until full and final recovery. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum