1. The case of the Complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Tripura, related to his travel to Mumbai and Amedabad by Deccan Airlines by which the tickets were booked by a Travel Agency, Hindustan Tours and Travel, Agartala. Deficiency of service is alleged on account of- a) Demand and payment of extra luggage charge of Rs.1,400/- for Kolkata to Mumbai journey, when he had already been made to pay Rs.2,100/- from Agartala to Kolkata. b) Excess flight time taken in the travel from Kolkata to Mumbai, due to diversion to Hyderabad. c) Insistence of the Deccan Aviation Ltd. on payment of rescheduling charge by credit card only, for return to Agartala from Kolkota. As he did not posses a credit card, he had to cancel these tickets and buy new tickets from Indian Airlines, resulting in extra-expenditure. 2. The District Forum came to a conclusion that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and therefore dismissed the complaint. In the appeal against this order, the State Commission, Tripura disagreed with the finding of the District Forum and allowed the complaint. Revision Petitioner-Deccan Aviation Ltd. (presently known as Kingfisher Airlines) was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- as well as refund the excess luggage charges of Rs.1,400/-. The present revision petition seeks to challenge this order of the State Commission. 3. The Revision Petitioner has claimed that the impugned order is based on erroneous assumptions and surmises. According to the Revision Petitioner, the Complainant had three different tickets for travel in three different sectors: “(i) PNR No.1909140 (for travel of Dr. J.L. Roy from Agartala to Kolkata) for travel on the 4th of April, 2007. (ii) PNR No.1909426 (for travel from Kolkata to Mumbai via Hyderabad by flight No. DN722), for travel on the 4th of April, 2007 and (iii) PNR No.1909869 (for travel from Kolkata to Agartala on Flight No.DN675) for journey on 18th of April, 2007.” 4. The three tickets had three different PNRs numbers for three different flights. According to the petitioner, they were different flights and not connected flights. Therefore, the question of single charge of excess luggage for complete journey from Agartala to Mumbai was not possible. As for the non-refund of Rs.2,801/- from return journey from Kolkata to Agartala, the Revision Petitioner claims that this amount has been rolled back to the account of Travel Agent, OP-2. This fact was allegedly, overlooked by the State Commission. As for the extra journey time, the revision petitioner has claimed that it was a regular flight from Kolkata to Mumbai via Hyderabad and it was not a case of sudden change of journey schedule, as alleged. 5. We have heard the counsel for the revision petitioner, who has reiterated the grounds as listed above. From the records of the case, we find that entire onward journey from Agartala to Mumbai was performed on a single day i.e. 4.4.2007 and on flights of the same Airlines, run by Revision Petitioner/OP-1. It also needs to be noted that the booking at Agartala for this journey was done by Respondent-2/OP-2, who was local agent of Daccan Aviation Ltd. at Agartala. From these facts, it is abundantly clear that travel in three different sectors and on three different flights, was at best the plan of the local agent i.e. OP-2, without any reference to availability or otherwise of any alternative flight by shorter route between Agartala and Mumbai for the same day. In any case, it is not possible to infer from these facts that travel by three different flights, only to reach Mumbai on the same day, could have been a matter of conscious choice of the Complainant. In fact, the halt at Hyderabad is a specific grievance of the Complainant. Findings of the State Commission need to be appreciated in this background. The State Commission was very right in observing that as the Complainant was traveling from Agartala to Mumbai by the same Airlines, though on different flights, the luggage should have been directly booked from Agartala to Mumbai instead of being handed over to Complainant at Kolkota. The State Commission was therefore, right in holding that this amounted to deficiency in service. 6. The State Commission has also referred to production of relevant rules of Revision Petitioner/OP-1, which permits payment of Airfare by credit card or by Indian currency. The case of the Complainnat was that he had to purchase air tickets on cash payment due to insistence of the Airlines staff at Kolkata on receiving rescheduling charge through credit card only, instead of cash. On this point, the District Forum has observed in its order that:- “The entire facts stated by the petitioner have not been disputed by the O/P and the only case of the O/P NO.2 that, even if the entire facts of the petitioner are believed, they do not disclosed any deficiency in service by the O/P No.2” 7. In this background, we find nothing wrong with the following conclusion reached by the State Commission in the impugned order that: “If there was really no refusal by the respondent the appellant would not have cancelled the tickets and buy fresh tickets from other airlines for journey on 17.4.2007. This circumstance eloquently says that there is element of falsehood in the contention of the respondent. Thus , refusal to accept Indian currency by the respondent at the Kolkata airport amounted to serious deficiency in service.” 8. Coming finally, to the reasons for flight to Mumbai being routed to Hyderabad, the State Commission has observed that no material were examined on this issue, beyond the contention of the revision petitioner/OP-1 that the normal route of this flight was via Hyderabad only. The State Commission has therefore left this grievance as unsubstantiated. We would however, like to observe that for an air traveler from Agartala to Mumbai, performing the entire journey in a single day, the most acceptable route will be shortest and the most direct flight available. The stop over at Hyderabad can therefore, by no stretch of imagination, be treated as a matter of facility or convenience sought by him. 9. In the background of the examination above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tripura. The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
