Present : Sh.Varinder Sharma counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.J.K. Behl counsel for opposite party No.1.<br /> Sh.Gaurav Sharma counsel for opposite parties No.2 & 3.<br /> JUDGMENT (SH.GULSHAN PRASHAR MEMBER )<br /> Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Jitesh Verma against opposite parties i.e. M/s Travel Com. World Wide Travel Agents, Shree Nath Palace, Old Post Office Road, Phagwara. and M/s A.I.R. India through its Manager, C/o Jeewan Bharti Building, Ist Floor, Beside Regal Cinema, Cannaught Place, Delhi. and also M/s AIR India through its Managing Director, Jeewan Bharti Building, Ist Floor, Beside Regal Cinema, Cannaught Place, Delhi.<br /> 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant alongwith his family wished to visit U.K. having passport and valid visa of all members and complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,30,500/- vide cheque No.332126 favouring Travel .Com through his account at State Bank of India, Phagwara and opposite party No.1 got his tickets of Air India confirmed for the complainant, his wife Poonam Verma and for his minor son Nandan Verma and Gokul Verma. It has been further alleged that complainant as per the schedule, on 26/6/2007 alongwith his wife and minor children reached at Airport of Birmingham to take flight for Delhi but the flight was delayed from U.K. by 12 hours and the complainant and his family had no place to sleep and stay and had to pass 12 hours at Airport of Birmingham (U.K.) It is further alleged that no arrangement was made by opposite parties No.2 and 3 for providing stay nor proper food was provided and complainant an his family had to pass time on the floor of Airport and had to undergo mental tension, stress ad agony. It is also averred that on reaching complainant and his family at Delhi Airport at <br /> 11.30 AM, again they had to wait till 5.45 AM at Delhi Airport for for traveling from Delhi to Amritsar and again cause stress,, mental tension and harassment by opposite parties No.2 and 3 and there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties against which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and controverted the allegations of complainant. Preliminary objection has been raised that complaint is not maintainable and complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed real facts from this Forum. opposite party No.1 is merely a sub agent of M/s Sharma Travels, Jalandhar who are agents of Air India who had issued tickets under question of Air India to the complainant and and have no role to play and has been unnecessarily impleaded in the present complaint. <br /> 4. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 also appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which it has been pleaded that in view of contract entered between the parties with regard to clause No.9 of conditions of Travel sets that carrier undertakes to use its best efforts to carry the passengers and baggage with reasonable dispatch . Times shown in the timetable or elsewhere are not guaranteed and form no part of thi contract. Carrier may without notice substitute alternate carriers or aircraft and may after or omit stopping places shown on the ticket in case of necessity . Scheduled are subject to change without notice. Carriers assumes no responsibility for making connections. . It has been argued that delay occurred purely due to technical fault in the air bus which was beyond reasonable human control. Passengers were taken due care by the staff of opposite party at Birmingham Airport during those hours and every possible help and assistance were provided to them at the Airport. LRV meals vouchers were given to the passengers. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.2 and 3 so as to entitle the complainant to any relief. <br /> 5. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10.<br /> 6. On the other hand opposite party No.1 produced in evidence only one affidavit Ex.R1. Whereas opposite parties No.2 and 3 produced in evidence affidavit and document Ex.RW2/2 to RW4/2.<br /> 7. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that complainant alongwith his family wished to visit U.K. having passport and valid visa of all members and complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,30,500/- vide cheque No.332126 favouring Travel .Com through his account at State Bank of India, Phagwara and opposite party No.1 got his tickets of Air India confirmed for the complainant, his wife Poonam Verma and for his minor son Nandan Verma and Gokul Verma. It has been further argued that complainant as per the schedule on 26/6/2007 alongwith his wife and minor children reached at Airport of Birmingham to take flight back for Delhi but the flight was delayed from U.K. by 12 hours and the complainant and his family had no place to sleep and stay and had to pass 12 hours at Airport of Birmingham (U.K.) He further argued that no arrangement was made by opposite parties No.2 and 3 for providing stay nor proper food was provided and complainant an his family had to pass time on the floor of Airport and had to undergo mental tension, stress ad agony. It is also argued that on reaching complainant and his family at Delhi Airport at 11.30 AM, again they had to wait till 5.45 AM at Delhi Airport for for traveling from Delhi to Amritsar and again cause stress,, mental tension and harassment by opposite parties No.2 and 3 and there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 8. On the other hand counsel for opposite party No.1 argued that opposite party No.1 is merely a sub agent of M/s Sharma Travels, Jalandhar who are agents of Air India who had issued tickets under question of Air India to the complainant and and have no role to play and has been unnecessarily impleaded in the present complaint. <br /> 9. Counsel for opposite parties No.2 and 3 has argued that in view of contract entered between the parties with regard to clause No.9 of conditions of Travel sets that carrier undertakes to use its best efforts to carry the passengers and baggage with reasonable dispatch . Times shown in the timetable or elsewhere are not guaranteed and form no part of the contract. Carrier may without notice substitute alternate carriers or aircraft and may after or omit stopping places shown on the ticket in case of necessity . Scheduled are subject to change without notice. Carriers assumes no responsibility for making connections. . It has been argued that delay occurred purely due to technical fault in the air bus which was beyond reasonable human control. Passengers were taken due care by the staff of opposite party at Birmingham Airport during those hours and every possible help and assistance were provided to them at the Airport. LRV meals vouchers were given to the passengers. Other allegations of the complainant have been emphatically denied.<br /> 10. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. Admittedly on 28/6/2007 complainant and his wife alongwith minor children went to take the flight at Airport Birmingham (U.K.) but the flight was delayed from U.K. by 12 hours and family of the complainant with minor children who have no place to sleep and stay who have to wait for about 12 hours at Birmingham Airport.<br /> Now the next question which fell for determination is as to whether complainant was informed about the change of departure time or not. For that no evidence is forthcoming on the record and it is duty of the Airlines to have informed the complainant well in time and should have made arrangement for stay of the complainant and his family. But this required step was not taken and complainant and his family suffered great harassment and agony there at Birmingham Airport.<br /> 11. Further defence taken by opposite parties No.2 and 3 cannot serve the purpose that on the said date, flight was delayed purely due to technical fault because had it been a technical fault in the Airplane it was the bounden duty of Airlines to intimate or inform its counter at Birmingham Airport so as to apprise the complainant and as such this plea of opposite parties No.2 and 3 appears to be an afterthought as the same has not found any support from any affidavit of techical expert or any doocument which would save the Airlines from deficiency in service.<br /> Similar the fate of the complainant and his family meet same difficulty at the Delhi Airport on account of traveling from Delhi to Amritsar on their confirmed tickets thereby more than about six hours have to spent at Delhi Airport for taking flight to Amritsar. Admittedly inconvenience was caused to complainant and his family for waiting above mentioned period.<br /> It has been urged by learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 and 3 proper care was taken of the complainant and his family by providing vouchers for food, as such no inconvenience or mental tension was cause to them<br /> But simply providing food to them cannot be said to have served the desired purpose because opposite parties No.2 and 3 are very silent about stay arrangement of the complainant, his wife and for minor children in a reasonable hotel. It is generally seen that all Airlines provide suitable accommodation in case such like eventualities happen but in the instant case, no such facility was provided to the complainant and his family and that too on the foreign soil i.e. Birmingham (U.K.) and in India at Delhi Airport.<br /> How in these circumstances it can be said that complainant and his family was given proper service at Birmingham (U.K.). The only conclusion which can arise is that no proper facility for stay was given to the complainant and his family at the Birmingham Airport (U.K.) which can be termed to be deficiency in service by causing mental agony and harassment etc. to the complainant.<br /> 12. Learned counsel for opposite partie No.2 and 3 has also argued that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint which is not convincing as opposite party No.1 has admitted in his written statement that M/s Sharma Travels are agent of opposite parties No.2 and 3, opposite party NO.1 being sub agent received the payee cheque No. 332126 for Rs.1,30,500/- vide Ex.C2 and bank statement of SBI, Phagwara shows that cheque was credited to opposite party No.1 i.e. Travel Com who was instrumental in getting tickets issued by Air India from M/s Sharma Travels and ultimately the amount was received by opposite parties No.2 and 3 through opposite party No.1. As such how it can be said that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide over the issue .<br /> The matter does not end here. When the tickets to the complainant and his wife were handed over at Phagwara then it can safely be concluded that part of cause of action accrued at Phagwara, so this Forum has the jurisdiction to try this complaint.<br /> It is also observed that no technical snag, poor visibility in the air field, bad weather, birds hits, tyres burst, late availability of aircrafts while landing has been established by providing cogent and convincing evidence, as such authorities cited by the opposite parties cannot be applicable to the present case.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint and opposite parties No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.14000/- as compensation for causing inconvenience for not providing accommodation for stay of complainant and his family besides Rs.6000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and also Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/desopatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Shashi Narang ) (Gulshan Prashar) (Paramjit Singh ) <br /> 13.1.2009 Members President.