Complainant through Adv. Patil 

Opponent No. 1 & 2 through Adv. Jambli

Opponent No. 3 & 4 through Adv. Ahir

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--

Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President                      Place   :  PUNE

// J U D G M E N T //

(23/08/2013)

          This complaint is filed by the passenger against the traveling agency and Airlines Company under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service.  The brief facts are as follows.

1]       The complainants are Advocates by profession and they are traveling abroad regularly in different parts of world during summer vacation.  In the year 2008 they had decided to travel to USA in the month of May for summer vacation.  They approached the opponent no.4 and booked tickets of traveling from Mumbai to New York and from New York to Mumbai.  The tickets were booked and confirmed for the journey from 03/05/2008 to 04/06/2008.  All the tickets were confirmed.  When they reported to Airport for return journey on 4/6/2008, prior to departure time, they came to know that their tickets were cancelled.  They were surprised.  On making enquiry, they came to know that their tickets were cancelled by the opponent no. 4.  Then the Airline Company has made alternate arrangement for their returning journey by air craft of Delta Airlines, which was scheduled after 10 hours from the scheduled flight.  During that period they were continuously under stress and tension, as their confirmed tickets were cancelled and at the eleventh hour they had required to travel by different flight.  They had required to carry their luggage from one terminal to another, as their flight was changed abruptly.  Seat numbers were allotted to them just 30 minutes before boarding.  The opponents did not take pain to intimate the complainants about cancellation of tickets.  Hence, they have faced trauma and mental torture.  They have claimed compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for each complainant from the opponents for deficiency in service as well as for cost of the proceeding and mental and physical sufferings.

2]      The opponent no. 1 to 4 resisted the complaint by filing separate written versions.  According to the opponent no. 1 and 2, they are Airline Company.  As per scheduled plan the complainants had booked tickets for break journey and they have planned to travel by two different Airline Company i.e. opponent no. 1 and 2.  It is the case of opponent no. 1 and 2 that they have not caused any deficiency in service and they had no any hand in cancellation of tickets of the complainants.  The tickets were cancelled by the travel Agency.  Hence, they are not liable for any compensation.  They have also contended that they have made alternate arrangement for complainants and complainants have accepted the alternative arrangement.  Hence, no compensation can be awarded.  They have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]      The opponent no. 3 and 4 have filed common written version.  These are two different offices of the same traveling agency, who had booked tickets for the complainants.  They have also denied the contents of the complaint in toto.  According to them, they have not caused any deficiency in service, as they have booked tickets as per the instructions of the complainant and they have not cancelled the tickets, as alleged.  It is also contended by the opponent no. 3 and 4 that as the alternate arrangement was made by the Airline company, complainants have not sustained any loss, as no extra charges was taken by the Airline company.  As there is no deficiency in service, the complainants are not entitled for compensation on any ground.   They have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4]      After scrutinizing the affidavits filed by both the parties and documents on record, following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-

REASONS :-

5]          The fact as regards the booking of tickets for the journey by the opponent no. 1 and 2 are not in much dispute.  It is the case of the complainants that they have not caused any trouble while proceeding from Mumbai to New York.  But on return journey, they were harassed due to cancellation of confirmed tickets at the eleventh hour by the opponent.  It reveals from the pleadings itself of both the parties that the tickets of the complainants were cancelled abruptly and they have required to travel by different plane after 10 hours.  The complainants have not made any grievance about sustaining economic loss, as they have admitted that the opponents have made alternate arrangement for their travel.  It is well established that the complainants had required to travel by the alternative plane and their confirmed tickets were cancelled.  It is also not in dispute that the tickets were booked by the opponent no. 3 and 4 for the airline of opponent no. 1 and 2.  Hence I held that the trouble, which was caused to the complainants, was due to joint and several acts of opponent no. 1 to 4.  It is the case of the complainants that they had required to move from one terminal to another along with luggage and they had required to stay at airport for 10 hours.  Definitely, if a person is stranded at Airport for long period, he must have been frustrated and suffered by trauma and mental stress and for that purpose, he is entitled for legitimate compensation.  There is no parameter for measurement of mental trauma, hence adequate compensation, after considering the standard of living of the parties is justifiable.  In my opinion, both complainants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each for deficiency in service, Rs. 5000/- for mental and physical sufferings and Rs. 2000/- for cost of the proceeding.

6]      According to the opponent no. 3 and 4, their company is winded up and liquidator is appointed, hence no proceeding can be initiated against them.  It is significant to note that this defense was not taken by them at the time of fling written version.  But as per record, it appears that liquidator is appointed, hence this order can be enforced against the liquidator of opponent no. 3 and 4.  It is also brought on record that the Managing Director of opponent no. 3 and 4 is not alive.  His death certificate is placed on record, as opponent no. 3 and 4 are body corporate.  Hence, it will not make any difference, if Managing Director is not alive at the time of passing order.  Considering above discussion, I answer accordingly and pass following order.

**  ORDER **

1.                 Complaint is partly allowed.

2.                 It is hereby declared that the opponents

have caused deficiency in service. 

3.                 The opponents no. 1 to 4 are directed to

pay jointly and severally an amount of

Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only)

towards compensation for deficiency in

service,  Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand

only) towards compensation for mental

and physical sufferings and Rs. 2,000/-

(Rs. Two Thousand only) towards cost

of  the  proceeding, to  each complainant

within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of

this order.

4.       Copies of this order be furnished to the

parties free of cost.

5.                 Parties are directed to collect the sets,

which were provided for Members within

one month from the date of order, otherwise

those will be destroyed.