Respondent/complainants are husband and wife.  While the husband is a doctor doing his practice in medicine, the wife is a teacher in a Public School.  They had confirmed booking of tickets with Air Canada, the present petitioners to travel from Delhi to Baltimore on 30.4.2005 as also for their return journey to Delhi from Baltimore to Delhi via Toronto after a stoppage of two hours at Toronto on 17.6.2005. When the couple reached Baltimore on 17.6.2005, they were informed that while the flight from Baltimore to Toronto was on schedule, the flight from Toronto to Delhi had been rescheduled from 17.6.2005 to 19.6.2005.  In the absence of any prior intimation, the complainants had to stay at Toronto for two days where the petitioner – Airline had not provided any accommodation.  Alleging harassment, mental torture and avoidable expenditure, the respondent/ complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (New Delhi), K.G.Marg (for short ‘District Forum’) seeking a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.   The complainant was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party mainly on two counts ; it was firstly contended that they had no means to convey to the complainant the rescheduling of the flight as the complainant had not provided any contact number either at Baltimore or in Toronto.  The second plea was that the petitioner – Airline was well within their rights to change the schedule of flights as per conditions of contract contained in the ticket issued to the passengers which forms an integral part of the travel.  One of such conditions of contract clearly states that the schedules are subject to change and the Airline does not guarantee time schedules.  The District Forum, on consideration of the evidence produced before it and after considering the arguments advanced by the parties held the petitioner/opposite party deficient in rendering service and partly allowing the complaint directed the petitioner/opposite party to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation to the complainants and in addition awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation. 

Aggrieved thereupon, an appeal was filed by the present petitioner – Air Canada before Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘State Commission’) who vide order dated 25.3.2009 dismissed the appeal holding it to be devoid of any merit and directed the petitioner to comply with the order passed by the District Forum within one month of receipt of its order. 

          Yet, dissatisfied with the outcome of their appeal that the petitioner/opposite party have filed this revision petition.

          Learned counsel for the petitioner – Air Canada has assailed the order of the fora below, once again raising the same conditions of the petitioner’s right to reschedule its flight and further that under the contract between the parties, the Airline did not guarantee the time and schedule of flights.  He has also strenuously argued to pass on the blame for the lack of information with regard to the change on the respondent/complainants by alleging that they had failed to provide any contact, address or telephone no. while in USA or in Canada.  Had they done so, the petitioner would have informed them well in time with regard to the rescheduling of the flight.  He further contends that the fora below have proceeded to decide the matter not on due consideration of the circumstances and the rights of the petitioners but have gone on mere presumption and assumption.  It has further been submitted that the fora below have failed to consider that the complainants despite knowing that the flight from Toronto to Delhi had been rescheduled from 17.6.2005 to 19.6.2005, chose to travel to Toronto on 17.6.2005 for which the Airline could not be held liable.  Further, the letter of regret which was issued by the petitioner as a matter of courtesy and which did not form part of the pleadings has been given undue importance and wrongly held against the petitioner by the fora below. He has also challenged quantum of compensation stating that there is no discussions with regard to any loss or damage that has been suffered by the complainant.  He, therefore, submits that the order passed by fora below be set aside and the revision petition be accepted.

          Learned counsel for the respondent/complainants on the other hand has submitted that in this case both the District Forum as well as the State Commission have given concurrent finding of deficiency in service. They have held the Airline squarely responsible for rescheduling the flights without any prior intimation to the complainants who had confirmed tickets for their return journey. This  amounted to deficiency in service, specially when the Airline had failed even to show the minimum courtesy of providing transport and hotel accommodation during their stay at Toronto when they were forced to wait for two days to catch the reschedule flight.  He has, therefore, submitted that there being absolutely no merit in the revision petition the same deserves to be summarily dismissed.

          Having perused the records of the case and having heard learned counsel for the parties ; we are surprised to find that the petitioner – Airline, rather than gracefully accepting the well reasoned and judicious order passed by fora below have challenged  the same once again in revision petition.  The plea of the petitioner – Airline from the very beginning has been on very shaky ground.  While they admit that the flight had been rescheduled from 17.6.2005 to 19.6.2005, they have failed to produce any evidence with regard to any attempt on their part to contact the complainants on whatever source was available to them such as through their own agent who had issued the return ticket to the complainants who was given a photocopy of the passport which contained the full address. Besides, the agent had noted the residential telephone no. of the couple on its bill.  What is, however, more surprising is that in the present day of on-line communication facilities being available through electronic media by means of E-mail, Fax, mobile telephone etc., it was for the service provider i.e. the petitioner – Airline to have obtained such details so as to get in touch with their passengers in case of any eventuality, about which no mention has been made.  Rather than streamlining their own system to make it conducive to better service, the petitioner have chosen to blame the passengers.

The more serious conduct which poorly reflects on the petitioner, however, relates to the respondents/complainants being left to fend for themselves for a period of two days from 17.6.2005 to 19.6.2005 with regard to transport, lodging and boarding arrangements at Toronto which was a forced halt due to the rescheduling of the flight.  This was the minimum that was expected from the petitioner – Airline to have provided to the respondent/complainant since the rescheduling of the flight was arbitrary and without any prior intimation.  Their contentions that they acted within the rights to change the schedule and, therefore, they cannot be held liable for any claim to say the least is preposterous and goes contrary to the very basic tenets of a service provider operating in the field of carrying passengers by Air and that too on international routes.  It needs no mention that in order to travel by Air from one country to another, a host of formalities and restrictions such as obtaining a visa and immigration clearance etc. are involved.  Most often the Visas for foreign visits are granted only for a limited period and in that scenario if the Airline takes the plea that their right to rescheduling flight cannot be questioned, it will put the passengers to not only lot of harassment but also mental torture as any stay in a foreign land beyond the permissible period of visa could entail legal action.

We are surprised to find that the petitioners in their Memorandum of Appeal before the State Commission have stated that “even if the visa expires, the passengers or travelers are not held back in the country of travel.”  Coming from the Airline who should be fully aware of the consequences of overstay in a foreign land beyond the period permitted under the visa, this amounts to misleading the fora and has to be viewed seriously.

In so far as the compensation part is concerned when the respondent/complainant couple had to stay at an expensive city like Toronto for a period of two days and had to make their own arrangements for transport, hotel accommodation and support themselves for food etc., they must have incurred some expenditure which cannot be termed negligible.  Besides, the sudden and surprise development would have created mental tension and inconvenience to them.  The compensation awarded, therefore, cannot be said to be excessive. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we find absolutely no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.