These two appeals are filed by the Air India against the order of AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, made on 12.10.2006. This was a common order in two separate complaints. The complainants are related to each other as father and daughter. Both appeals have been filed with a delay of 42 days. However, considering the explanation offered, the delay has been condoned.
2. Both cases, relate to preponement of the date of return journey from USA to India, from 1.6.2003 to 29.05.2003. The case of the complainants was that on the date of the journey i.e. 29.5.2003, they had completed the check in process and were awaiting the boarding call. At that stage, they were summoned to the desk at Gate No.62 and informed that they needed to pay $175, as preponement charge for both passengers, before they could be permitted to board the flight. This payment was made through the credit card of the father and they were permitted to undertake the journey.
3. It was alleged that the complainants were subjected to not only this unfair treatment but also had to undergo considerable personnel inconvenience due to delay in boarding caused by this episode. Therefore, both sought compensation of $200,000, each.
4. The response of OP/Air India was that the ticketing was done in USA, the journey in question commenced from New Jersey and the demand for preponenment charge was made at New Jersey Air Port. Therefore, A.P. State Commission had no territorial Jurisdiction. It was also argued that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the travel agent who has made the booking was not joined as a necessary party. The OP also argued that demand of an unpaid amount should not be treated as causing inconvenience to the passengers. Inconvenience if any, was the result of wrongful act of the travel agent in not collecting this charge and therefore, there is no liability of the OP.
5. The State Commission held that the OP, as the principal of the travel agent, was responsible for all his acts and therefore, it is not a case of bad complaint for non-joinder of necessary party. If any penal or special charge was payable, it should have been collected at the time of issue of the modified ticket or even at the time of check in. The Commission therefore, allowed both complaints and awarded compensation of Rs.45,000/- to the daughter and Rs.30,000/- to the father. We have perused the case and heard the counsels for the two parties. Learned counsel for the appellant/Air India pointed out that the issue of non-joinder of the travel agent (Sudha Travels) was specifically raised in the counter, filed on behalf of the OP before the State Commission. As the preponment of the return flight was done through the travel agent, it was his duty to collect the preponment charge. The OP was not liable for this lapse of the travel agent. We do not appreciate the logic behind this argument of the appellant. The agent had, as is quite apparent from the transaction, implicit authority to collect the entire cost of the ticket on behalf of the principal i.e. Air India. The arrangement between the two clearly, was of collection of the booking amount by the agent and passing its credit to the principal. In the same manner, any other charge, collectable on account of these bookings, would also passed from agent to the principal. It is therefore, not open to the appellant/OP to claim that they are not responsible for the lapse of the agent. The question of non-joinder of the travel agent as a party to the proceedings before the State Commission, will therefore not arise.
6. In our view, the State Commission has very rightly observed that even if non-collection by the agent needed to be made good before the departure of the flight, it should have been done at the check in counter. We are also in agreement with the State Commission that not informing the Complainant about the payable charge at the first instance and the manner of collecting it before departure amount to deficiency in service.
7. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is dismissed for want of merit and the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, in C.D. No.60 of 2003 & C.D. No.2 of 2004 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
|
