Justice Pritam Pal, President

  1.          This appeal by Air India -opposite parties No.1 & 2 and M/s Interface Tours & Travels (P) Ltd)-Sub-dealer is directed against the order dated 14.1.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.182 of 2009 filed by  respondents No.1 & 2 /complainants was  allowed  with costs and opposite parties jointly and severally were directed to make the  payments to the complainant  in the following terms ;

            (i)     The sum of Rs.1550/- as the amount deducted by the OPs at the       time of making refund of the price of the e-ticket paid by the Complainants        at the time of issuance of ticket.

(ii)        The difference in price of the new ticket i.e. Rs.19,869/-, which the Complainant had to purchase on the spot for another flight after the OPs had denied him the boarding pass for taking the flight of Singapore Airlines on 10.07.2008.

(iii)       To pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant, on account of denial of seat in the flight of Singapore Airlines on 10.07.2008, and also on account of forcing the Complainants to postpone the flight by one day for 11.07.2008.

  2.            The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum.

3.       In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that   Sh. Roopinder Singh- Complainant No. 2, being the father of Sh. Ranjot Singh - Complainant No. 1, got one confirmed E-ticket booked through OP No. 4 (Sub-Dealer) of OP No. 3 on 09.07.2008 of Air India Flight for Complainant No. 1 for going to Melbourne on 10/07/2008 and to return back on 16/12/2008, from Melbourne to New Delhi. The Complainants paid cost of  Rs.53,981/- for Ticket No. ETKT0985741819317, having PNR No. AI/J4EWH of Air India Flight No. 7407, which was booked in the name of Mr. Ranjot Singh- Complainant No. 1 for going to Melbourne on 10.07.2008 at 23:10 PM from New Delhi. When  Complainants and their other family members reached New Delhi Airport  in the evening from Chandigarh on 10.07.2008, Complainant No. 1 reported at Air India Airlines Counter but the Officials present at the counter asked  complainant No. 1 to report at Singapore Airlines Counter  as Singapore Airlines was an alliance airline of Air India for going to Melbourne. On reaching Singapore Airlines counter, the officials of Singapore Airlines told the Complainants that there was no confirmation of the said ticket as per their records and as such  Complainant No. 1 could not be given Boarding Pass and further asked the Complainants to contact the Air India counter.  The Complainants immediately contacted Air India office and got the status checked up which showed that the said ticket purchased by the Complainant No. 2 for his son Complainant No.1 was a confirmed ticket. Thereafter, the Duty Officer present at the counter of Air India went to check the status at Singapore Airlines counter, but the Officials present there told the Duty Officer that  the flight was heavily booked and there was no seat available  hence, complaint No. 1 could not be allowed to board the flight. Ultimately on 11.07.2008 i.e. the next day, the Complainant No. 2 was forced to buy another ticket of some other Airlines and that too at a higher price of Rs.73,850/- for Complainant No. 1  as he was to reach Melbourne within two days to report there for some urgent work.  OPs No. 1 & 2 were then requested to refund the amount of the ticket  as Complainant No. 1 was not allowed to board the flight  but they only agreed to pay amount after deducting the commission of the Agent etc. Complainant then served legal notice dated 11.09.2008   upon  OPs to do the needful  but to no effect.  However, OPs  on 10.07.2008   refunded the amount   by deducting commission of Rs.1550/-. Hence,   alleging   deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the parts of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.    

4.             On the other hand,  OPs No. 1 & 2 in their joint written reply before the District Forum   pleaded that  the Bill No. 118, dated 09 July, 2008 for Rs.54,420/- was issued by AVS Group Travel and Tours and not by M/s Interface Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd – OP No.4 for purchase of the e-ticket .  The Complainants were not consumers qua OPs No. 1 & 2 as the flight was operated by Singapore Airlines and OPs No. 1 & 2 were facilitators as marketing carriers.  It was further pleaded that since the Complainant No. 1 could not board the booked flight of Singapore Airlines on 10.07.2008, OPs No. 1 & 2 as a goodwill gesture refunded the amount without  levying any refund charges.    OPs NO. 1 & 2 were not liable to refund of service charges recovered by the booking agent, or sub-dealer, impleaded as OP No. 4 who   had refunded the  full amount of Rs.54,545/-  in cash to the Complainant.  The denial of seat by Singapore Airlines in flights on 10.7.2008 was beyond the control of the answering OPs.  The Complainant instead of approaching the OPs No.1 & 2 or Singapore Airlines to provide alternative flight, opted for flight of his liking without approaching for next available flight.           However, OP No. 4 in their reply  pleaded that they being Sub-Dealer of OP No. 3 had just issued the confirmed e-ticket to Complainant No. 1 and it was the duty of the Airlines to provide seat and issue boarding pass to Complainant No. 1, hence they were not at all deficient in providing any service to the Complainants. It was further pleaded  that no commission was deducted and full amount of Rs.54,545/- was refunded in cash to the Complainant.  OPs No.3 & 5 did not appear before the District Forum despite due service and suffered ex parte proceedings.

5.         The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, opposite parties  No.1,2 & 4 have come up in this appeal. 

 6.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties   and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellants/opposite parties is that  they were marketing carrier and OP NO.3 was booking agent and had no control on the flights operated by Singapore Airlines. The E.Ticket issued to the complainants clearly mentioned that he was having confirmed OK ticket of Singapore Airlines.  The flight was of Singapore Airlines and boarding was denied  by it, so the fault or lapse was on the part of Singapore Airlines but it did not appear before the District Forum nor filed any reply. However, appellants as a goodwill gesture refunded the full amount of Rs.54545/- without any deduction or commission.  It was submitted that the amount awarded by the District Forum as compensation  and interest @ 18% was on the higher side as there was no deficiency in service on its part.  However, the above points of arguments have been repelled by the complainants.

7.         We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above points of arguments and find the same  to be devoid of any merit, inasmuch-as  complainants  had paid the full amount of the ticket in advance and also obtained a confirmed e-ticket, for traveling from New Delhi to Melbourne on 10.07.2008. This fact was admitted  not only by the Dealer/Sub Dealer of OPs No. 1 & 2, but also by OPs No. 1 & 2 themselves on the day of the flight i.e. 10.07.2008, at the New Delhi Airport. Therefore, the Complainant was not required to seek any further confirmation from any one in respect of the proposed flight. It is a different   matter that OPs No. 1 & 2 had some arrangement/alliance  with Singapore Airlines and  they were  acting as Marketing Carrier on “Code Sharing Basis” and treating Singapore Airlines as the Operating Airlines but  the Complainant was not concerned what internal arrangement OPs No. 1 & 2 had made with Singapore Airlines . The Complainants paid money in full to OP No. 4, who was the Direct Agent/ Dealer of OPs No. 1& 2 who in turn   had further authorized AVS Group Travel and Tours to issue the confirmed e-ticket to the Complainant, which they had done.   

8.           It  is worth mentioning here that  the amount of ticket was refunded by OPs NO.1 & 2 as admitted in their reply.  The  flight was booked by OP No.1 & 2 and they had some arrangement/alliance with the  operating flight which  was of Singapore Airlines. Thus, Singapore Airlines  was  agent of  their principal- OP No.1 & 2 who   were liable for the acts of omission and commission of their agent  as the boarding was denied by Singapore Airlines despite confirmed booking of the complainant No.1. OP NO.3 & 4 were ticketing agent of the airlines and as such all OPs were rightly   held liable jointly and severally by the District Forum by  referring authorities of Hon’ble National Commission titled Air India Vs Harpreet Singh III(2003)CPJ 123(NC) and  Indian Airlines Limited & Anr. Vs Dr.Savita Malhotra & Ors. 2009(2)CPC 646 .

9.           Thus, the Learned District Forum rightly appreciated all the aspects of the case and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case  directed OPs to pay Rs.1550/- deducted by them at the time of making the refund, Rs.19869/- being difference in the price of the ticket  which complainant had to purchase   and  awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the complainant on account of denial of boarding  in the flight of Singapore Airlines against confirmed ticket.   As regards the penal interest awarded by the Learned District Forum @ 18% from 10.7.2008 till realization that  would be payable only in case OPs fail to pay the awarded amount within the stipulated time and as such there seems to be   no justification in reducing the same.

10.      In view of the foregoing discussion , we are of the considered opinion that   there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 14.1.2010 passed by the District Forum which is well reasoned and justified in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly the appeal, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.2000/-.  

            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.