By Mr. Justice A. Potsangbam,
Heard Mr. A.K. Sarkar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. None appears for the respondent despite due notice. As the issue involved in this appeal is of limited nature and facts not being complicated, we have decided to dispose of the case on the basis of materials available on record and also on consideration of submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
This appeal was filed against the order dated 12-4-2012 passed by the District Forum, Sonitpur, in CPA Case No. 15/2007 by which the appellant was directed to pay back a sum of Rs. 2509/- being the fare of one way ticket, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- being compensation for inconvenience etc. and also another sum of Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation.
Being aggrieved by this judgment, this appeal was filed mainly on the ground that Indian Airlines has no liability whatsoever to pay any kind of compensation to the respondent/ complainant in as much as the purchase of Air Ticket, its cancellation and refund etc. have been done through the respondent no. 2 namely, M/s Disha Travels, Tezpur. It is noticed from the records that respondent no. 1 purchased two tickets for air journey from Guwahati to Delhi by Air India Ltd. under a single PNR No. from the respondent no. 2 i.e. Travel Agency. As one of the passengers of the ticket was not in a position to travel on 2-5-2007, one of the two tickets was cancelled and a sum of Rs. 975 was refunded.
The case of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum was that when two tickets were purchased under a single PNR being RD 2E 6A, after cancellation a new PNR was allotted for the remaining ticket being PNR RFFR 8B which stood in the name of Sri S.S. Baheti. The misunderstanding crept into was with regard to the name of person whose ticket was erroneously cancelled. According to the complainant, he sought cancellation of the ticket of Mr. S.S. Baheti but he found that his ticket was cancelled therefore, he was not allowed to travel to Delih on the day of flight. As a result , he had to purchase a new ticket for undertaking the air journey. The argument advanced by Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant is that they have no role in selling and issuing the ticket and its PNR No. as the same were done by the Travel Agent against whom, no grievance was raised by the respondent. Mr. Sarkar has taken our attention to the complaint petition where a specific plea was taken by the respondent that they had no grievance against the respondent no. 2.
On perusal of the documents available before us and also on consideration of submission
made by Mr. Sarkar, we are persuaded to hold that purchase of ticket, cancellation and allotment of PNR were done through respondent no.2, therefore, Air India could hardly have any attributable liability. He also sought to justify his assertion by referring to the specific plea taken by the respondent no. 1, as discussed above, and he further submitted that the complaint was in the garb of a Collusive petition. In view of the above position which is not in dispute, we do not find any negligence attributable to the Air India and in absence of raising any grievance against respondent no. 2, we are not in a position to fix any liability upon respondent no.2. We have given our anxious thought to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and we are of the view that the finding recorded and the conclusion arrived by the District Forum are not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is hereby set-aside.
The appeal is allowed.
The statutory amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited by the appellant vide DD No. 907232 dated 25-6-2012 along with Rs. 10000/- deposited vide D.D. No. 027456 dated 18-4-2013, deposited in terms of order dated 26-2-2013, shall be returned to the appellant or their authorised agent, on being identified by a counsel known to the Commission.
Send back the original record along with a copy of this order to the District Forum.
