SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) <br /> <br /> The complaint is filed against the deficiency in service for providing seats in the air craft after taking tickets.<br /> <br /> The petitioner is an age old man planned to visit Venice, with his wife, where his daughter is working. For the purpose, the petitioner purchased two air tickets of the Airlines named Qatar Airways for the journey from Cochin to Venice in Italy and vice versa. The ticket was for the journey from Cochin to Venice and back to Cochin with his wife. The 3rd opposite party issued the ticket through the 2nd opposite party who is the authorised agent of the 3rd opposite party. The complainant received ticket from the Ist opposite party who is none other than the authorised agent of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant paid Rs.94,200/- for the cost of the same on 4.05.2005. A copy of the flight service information chart was also handed over to the complainant on the same day. The journey was scheduled to be made in Kochi-Doha-Rome-Venice route. In the chart given to the complainant the return tickets upto Doha were confirmed. The Ist opposite party assured the complainant that the ticket from Doha-Kochi also will be confirmed by the time of return journey and the time and number of Doha -Kochi flight was also noted in the ticket. Doha-Kochi flight was to be operated and its ticket was issued by the 3rd opposite party. The journey to Venice was scheduled on 5.05.2005 and the return journey was on 13.07.2005. The complainant and his wife reached Venice as scheduled. While they were in Italy on 7.06.2005, the complainant made enquiry at the office of the 3rd opposite party at Rome through a travel agency in Italy about the confirmation of the return ticket. But they have not given any reply. Hence the complainant's son-in-law has sent a copy of the return ticket to the office of the 3rd opposite party at Milan and made enquiry there. They have informed that the tickets upto Doha were confirmed and the Doha-Kochi ticket was cancelled. The name of the complainant and his wife were not seen in the computer. They have further informed that no seats were available during July and it would be available only by the end of August or September. Two days after they have informed that one seat is available on 22.06.2005 and if the complainant is intended to avail that ticket an additional amount of 175 Euro should be paid. It was necessary for the complainant to stay in Italy till 13th of July and it was also very essential for the complainant to return by the middle of July. As the complainant was affirmed from the office of the 3rd opposite party that he cannot travel by 13.07.2005 as per schedule, he was forced to avail the offer to travel by 22.06.2005 by paying 175 Euro for exchanging the ticket. The complainant was compelled to return to Kochi leaving his wife in Italy with his daughter and family in Italy and cut short his programmes in Italy. Apart from the above mentioned 175 Euro, the complainant spent 25 Euro for making telephone calls and for sending couriers for obtaining the ticket. The complainant had caused mental agony for parting his old wife for a long period. The complainant's wife is very reluctant to travel alone and he was forced to go to Venice once more to accompany her. But the complainant requested her to come alone to avoid additional expenses which put her in much hardships. The additional expenses caused to the complainant is more than 200 Euro which is equivalent to Rs.10,100/-. The complainant has constrained to send a lawyer notice to the opposite parties explaining all the things happened. But they responded with false contentions. So the petition is filed for getting compensation for mental agony for Rs.50,000/- and for other expenses.<br /> <br /> 2. In the written version filed by the Ist opposite party, it is admitted that they have issued tickets for journey to Venice and also for return journey to Kochi for the complainant and his wife. As per the ticket the date of journey to Italy was on 5.05.2005 and the date of return journey to Kochi was on 13.07.2005. The journey was through Kochi-Doha-Rome-Venice and Venice-Doha-Kochi. The Ist opposite party also received Rs.92,200/- from the complainant and issued ticket of the 3rd opposite party through their direct agent who was the 2nd opposite party. At the time of issuing the ticket, it was convinced to the complainant that the ticket from Kochi to Venice through Doha and the return ticket upto Doha were confirmed, the ticket from Doha to Kochi is not confirmed. It was also written in the information chart given to the complainant. The Ist opposite party also told that the 2nd opposite party has informed the Ist opposite party that there is possibility to confirm the entire journey ticket at the time of return journey as on 13.07.2005. But the complainant was in need of coming back early and so he started journey before 13.07.2005 from Venice. Only because of the complainant's necessity he paid additional amount and travelled in upper class ticket. The complainant never contacted to the Ist opposite party after starting journey from Kochi. If he was in contact with the Ist opposite party at the time of paying additional ticket charge, the opposite party may rectified the problems of the complainant. The complainant several times visited Venice and he is an experienced person. The complainant contacted the Ist opposite party only after reaching Kochi. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ist opposite party and the complaint may be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. As per the written version of the 2nd opposite party, they have admitted that they are the authorised agent of 3rd opposite party and it is also true that the 2nd opposite party had issued tickets for the journey of the complainant on 5.05.2005 to Venice in Italy from Kochi and for return journey to Kochi on 13.07.2005 through the Ist opposite party. The tickets to Venice were confirmed and return ticket upto Doha was confirmed. It was assured that the return tickets from Doha to Kochi will be confirmed before 13.07.2005. All the arrangements were made at Kochi for getting these tickets confirmed in time. It is understood that the complainant had preponed their journey from 13.07.2005 to 22.06.2005 and the complainant had returned on 22.06.2005. The complainant returned on higher class ticket exchanging the ticket which they had issued, after paying the difference of fair of the ticket since the tickets issued by the opposite party was for economy class(Lower class). The complainant or his son-in-law never contacted the opposite party for getting the tickets confirmed. Instead of approaching the opposite party, the complainant had approached some other travel agency at Milan for confirmation of the tickets. If they had approached the opposite party, the tickets would have been confirmed by the opposite party. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant had made enquiry in the computer system at Milan about the confirmation of the tickets. The arrangements made by the opposite party for confirming the tickets at Cochin need not be reflected in the computer system at Milan. The complainant's allegation that the tickets to Doha-Cochin was cancelled is not correct. The complainant never contacted the opposite party and there is no deficiency in the part of the 2nd opposite party.<br /> <br /> 4. The 3rd opposite party also filed written version, wherein, it is admitted that the ticket was issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant for his travel from Cochin to Venice via Doha and back to Cochin via Doha. The tickets were purchased from the 2nd opposite party which is a recognised IATA Travel agent. The return ticket of the passenger was in the waiting list in all sectors from Venice to Cochin that is from Venice to Doha and Doha to Cochin for want of seat. The complainant was very much aware of the situation as reflected from the entires in his ticket itself, in other words he purchased the tickets fully knowing the facts. It is admitted that later Venice to Doha sector was confirmed on availability of the vacant seat in the said sector. The confirmation for the said sector could not therefore be given on 13.07.2005 or in the ensuing dates. The complainant booked the ticket in Economy class. While a vacant seat was found available in higher class in the said sector on 22.06.2005, the air line upgraded the passenger on his request by paying difference in charge that is 175 Euro and a fresh ticket was issued. The outstation office of the 3rd opposite party truly and correctly disclosed the fact of non-availability of seats on 13.07.2005 in the above mentioned sectors. The Venice to Doha sector was later confirmed immediately on availability of the seat, whereas in the final sector of return journey to Doha-Cochin was not. There was no seat available for the class of ticket purchased and held by the complainant. It was the reason why he had to buy a ticket in higher class by paying the difference in charge. The 3rd opposite party never received any notice from the complainant. The 3rd opposite party is neither liable nor bound to pay any compensation to the complainant as alleged or there is no negligence on the part of the Airlines.<br /> <br /> 5. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? <br /> <br /> 6. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P11 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and Ext.R1(series) marked on the side of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 7. The POINT :- The petitioner purchased two air tickets of the 3rd opposite party's Airlines named Qatar Airlines for the journey from Cochin to Venice in Italy and vice versa. The ticket was for the journey from Cochin to Venice and back to Cochin with his wife. The 3rd opposite party issued tickets through his authorised agent which is the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party supplied the ticket through his agent at Thodupuzha, the Ist opposite party. The complainant paid Rs.94,200/- for the ticket. <br /> Ext.P1 is the receipt issued by the Ist opposite party for the same. The date of journey was on 5.05.2005 through Kochi-Doha-Rome-Venice and the return journey was dated 13.07.2005 through the same Airways. In the chart issued to the complainant, the return tickets upto Doha were confirmed which is marked as Ext.P4. The Ist opposite party has assured him that the ticket from Doha to Cochin also will be confirmed by the time of journey. The time and number of Doha-Kochi flight was also noted in the ticket. While after reaching Italy the complainant enquired at the office of the 3rd opposite party at Rome through the travel agency at Milan, they have informed that the tickets upto Doha were confirmed. Doha-Cochin ticket was cancelled, the name of the complainant and his wife were not seen in the computer. Ext.P5 is the receipt given from Penisola Travel Agency, Italy. Further informed that seats will be available only in August or in September. Two days after it was informed that, one seat is available on 22.06.2005 and the complainant have to pay an amount of 175 Euro as additional if he intent to travel on that day. It was essential for him to return in the middle of July, complainant fixed to travel by paying 175 Euro and exchanged his ticket. Ext.P6 is the copy of the passenger receipt for the same. As per PW1 the complainant, it was assured by the Ist opposite party at the time of issuing the ticket, the return journey seat from Doha to Kochi will be confirmed at the time of journey. The complainant had left his wife in foreign soil and returned on 22.06.2005. DW1 is the Manager of the Ist opposite party deposed that they have issued the ticket and received the money from the complainant. But they have collected the ticket through the 2nd opposite party, the authorised agent of the 3rd opposite party. It was informed to the complainant that in the return journey, the ticket from Doha to Kochi was not confirmed. It was also written in the information chart which is Ext.P4. It is also informed that there is possibility to confirm the ticket from Doha to Kochi. There were all possibilities to confirm the ticket if the journey was on 13.07.2005. But it was needed by the complainant to return early and so he paid additional charges. The complainant did not contact to the Ist opposite party from Venice. The Ist opposite party has sent the complaint given by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party which is Ext.R1(series).DW2 is the Sales Executive of the 3rd opposite party. The ticket was purchased by the complainant from the 2nd opposite party who is the authorised agent of the 3rd opposite party and which is a recognised IATA Travel agent. It was submitted that the return ticket of the passenger was in waiting list in all sectors from Venice to Cochin, that is from Venice to Doha and Doha to Cochin for want of seats at the time of purchase of the ticket, it was also reflected in the entries of the ticket. Later the Venice-Doha sector was confirmed in availability of vacant seat in the said sector. But the Doha-Cochin sector remained in waiting list as no vacant seat was available in the said sector. The confirmation for the said sector could not therefore be given on 13.07.2005 or in the subsequent dates. The complainant booked ticket in economy 'K' grade, while a vacant seat was found available in the higher class E grade in the economy class in the said sector on 22.06.2005, the airlines upgraded the passenger on his request by paying difference in charge that is 175 Euro and a fresh ticket was issued to him with his full consent. He received the ticket without any objection whatsoever. The complainant wanted to travel back to India, a seat was in request, he came in contact with their office at Italy. But they could not give seat in 'K' class, they offered a seat in economy 'B' class. The complainant satisfied and paid 175 Euro. Thus the ticket was exchanged. The difference also informed to the complainant. Ext.P3(series) is the air ticket issued by their company in economy 'B' class. It is very clear that the complainant's return ticket was not confirmed from Doha to Koch sector. 3rd opposite party also admitted the same. The outstation office of the 3rd opposite party truly and correctly disclosed the fact of non-availability of seats on 13.07.2005 in the Doha to Kochi sector. The complainant has to wait until August or September 2005 for the confirmation. The complainant needed to came in the middle of July. So he exchanged his ticket to upper class 'E' class ticket after paying 175 Euro as additional amount. The complainant planned to pilgrim Rome, London etc. with his better half. But the complainant has to wait till September for return of journey. So the complainant left his better half in foreign soil and returned to India. He was not able to travel with is wife. The complainant, 77 years old man left his wife at Italy, and his old wife travelled such a long distance alone from Italy to Kochi after four months, that is on 23rd November, 2005. She also paid an extra amount 149 Euro for the return journey. Ext.P9 is the receipt issued by the 3rd opposite party for the same. That is not challenged by any of the opposite parties. The opposite parties convinced the complainant at the time of issuing the ticket that the entire tickets will be confirmed in the time of return journey. The complainant paid 175 Euro as additional expenses and 25 Euro as telephone charges for the exchange of ticket. The complainant and his wife suffered a lot because of the act of the opposite parties. It is a gross deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant constrained to send legal notice to opposite parties, stating all the facts. Ext.P7, Ext.P8 and Ext.P11 shows the same. So we think that the opposite parties have to compensate the additional charges paid by the complainant which amounts to Rs.10,000/-. The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental sufferings caused to the complainant and his wife. It is not a huge amount for two senior citizens. Ist opposite party is only an agent of 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party is the authorised agent of the 3rd opposite party. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have not played any role in the confirmation of the tickets of the complainant.<br /> <br /> As a result, the petition allowed. The 3rd opposite party, the Manager, Qatar Airways is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant which is the additional charges paid for the return ticket from Venice to Kochi. The 3rd opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and physical sufferings caused to the complainant and his wife and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of August, 2008<br /> <br />