DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 270 of 10-09-07<br /> Decided on : 12-02-08<br /> <br /> 1.Chaman Bhalla S/o Sh. Hari Ram, aged about 53 years<br /> 2.Mrs. Krishna Bhalla W/o Sh. Chaman Bhalla aged about 48 years<br /> 3.Mohinder Bhalla S/o Sh. Chaman Bhalla aged about 19 years<br /> 4.Surinder Bhalla Minor D/o Sh. Chaman Bhalla aged about 15 years through her natural guardian and father Sh. Chaman Bhalla<br /> .... Complainants<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Teg Enterprises, Mann Complex, Opposite Centurian Bank of Punjab Limited, Guru Kashi Marg, Bathinda through its Partner/Proprietor/Manager.<br /> 2.Indian Air Lines, Air Line House, Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Road, New Delhi through its General Mnager<br /> <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sunder Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Opposite party No. 1 is the authorised agent of various air lines including Indian Air Lines i.e. opposite party No. 2. They arranged for various tours through out India (Domestic tours) as well as foreign country tours (International tours). They (complainants) had approached opposite party No. 1 at Bathinda and had booked tour from Delhi to Port Blair via Kotkatta on 12.5.07 vide invoice No. 1564.. Opposite party No. 1 charged Rs. 1,88,708/- from them i.e. Rs. 47,177/- for each of them. Confirmation Tickets No. 2208938441/42, 2208938443/44, 2208938445/46 and 2208938447/48 of Indian Air Lines i.e. opposite party No. 2 were issued by opposite party No. 1 having agent code No. AGT 3885380 of it (opposite party No. 2). Amount was charged by the opposite parties for lodging, boarding site scene and food etc., Package confirmation voucher with reservation No. P-20070512-33 with booking status confirmed was issued by opposite party No. 2.. Tour was for four nights and five days at Port Blair. They (complainants) were to fly from Delhi to Kolkotta by Flight No. IC-408 on 7.6.07 and were to reach at Kolkatta at 8.55 hours. Thereafter they were to depart from Kolkatta to Port Blair by Flight No. IC-287 on 8.6.07 at 5.35 hours and were to reach at Port Blair at 7.35 hours. They were to depart from Port Blair by Flight No. IC-288 on 12.6.07 at 8.20 hours and were to reach Kolkatta on 12.6.07 as per package confirmation voucher issued by the opposite parties. Accordingly, they made themselves available to the opposite parties at New Delhi Air Port. They took them (complainants) from Delhi to Kolkatta at 8.55 hours of 7.6.07.. Thereafter as per package confirmation voucher, they were to be taken from Kolkatta to Port Blair by Flight No. IC-287 on 8.6.07 at 5.35 hours. When they reached Kolkatta from Delhi on 7.6.07, it was conveyed by the opposite parties that there was no seat for them to fly from Kolkatta to Port Blair on 8.6.07. They were sent from Kolkatta to Chennai by Flight No. IC-765 on 8.6.07. In this manner opposite parties delayed their one day visit to Port Blair. Thereafter they were flown from Chennai to Port Blair by Flight No. IC-549 on 9.6.07 and they reached there on 9.6.07 although as per package tour and as per package confirmation voucher, they were to reach Port Blair on 8.6.07 at 7.35 hours. They were to remain at Port Blair from 8.6.07 to 12.6.07 i.e. for four nights and five days. Site scenes were to be arranged for them and other travellers as per schedule from 8.6.07 to 11.6.07. Last day i.e. 12.6.07 was kept for passengers including them for additional tour of Port Blair to visit the sites of their own choice. Their one day was wasted in travelling from Kolkatta to Chennai, as they reached Port Blair one day late i.e. on 9.6.07. They were to reach Port Blair on 8.6.07. So they stayed there one day less than agreed and could not enjoy the additional 5th day tour. They could not see the important sites on their choice on 5th day package at Port Blair which has caused great financial loss as well as enjoyment loss to them. For this, each of them claims Rs. 30,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of booking till realisation. They allege that they have suffered great mental tension and agony for which each of them claims Rs. 15,000/-. In these circumstances, instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- i.e. Rs. 30,000/- to each of them on account of one day enjoyment loss of additional tour of their choice at Port Blair and on account of financial loss; Rs. 60,000/- i.e. Rs. 15,000/- to each of them on account of of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses besides interest @12% P.A. from the date of booking i.e. 12.5.07 till realisation.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable on account of the fact that as per terms and conditions of package tour agreed upon and as per Passenger Ticket and Baggage Check, it was made clear that Indian Air Lines reserves the right without assigning any reasons to cancel, advance, reschedule, over fly or delay the commencement or continuance of the flight or alter the stopping place or places or to deviate from the route of the journey or to change the type of aircraft in use without thereby incurring any liability in damages or otherwise to the passengers or any other persons or on any ground whatsoever. If at any stage it is found that the aircraft with the booked load of passengers etc will be over-loaded the Company will have the right to decide which passengers or articles shall be off-loaded and such decision shall be binding. Company is not liable for damage occasioned by delay in carriage by air of passengers or baggage. These terms and conditions were duly communicated to the complainants at the time of booking and they accepted the package tour after accepting the terms and conditions. They (complainants) have not produced the copies of the passenger ticket and booklet containing these terms. This Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Complainants have availed all the facilities. Claim is highly inflated. Complainants have got no locus standi to file the complaint. They have concealed the fact that Leave Travelling Concession has been availed by them from the employer against this tour. They are estopped from filing the complaint by their act and conduct and complaint is false and frivolous. The deny that opposite party No. 1 is the authorised agent of Indian Air Lines for all purposes. Rather opposite party No. 1 is having agency only for sale of Domestic Passenger Tickets on behalf of opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 had arranged tours through out India. Opposite party No. 1 is not selling tickets for foreign country tours. Complainants had approached opposite party No. 1. Normal charges only for travelling from Delhi to Port Blair and return are Rs. 50,210/- per person. Since complainants availed the package tour, facilities of lodging, site seeing and food etc were provided only for Rs. 47,177/- per person. They deny that package was for 4 nights and 5 days at Port Blair. Rather it was of 3 nights and 4 days at that place and 4th night was complimentary. Complainants had travelled from Delhi to Kolkotta on 7.6.07. They had travelled from Delhi to Kolkatta on 7.6.07, from Kolkotta to Chhenai by Flight No. IC-765 on 8.6.07 and from Chennai to Port Blair by IC-549 on 9.6.07. They had reached Port Blair on 9.6.07. They were provided accommodation in Hotel Radha Park at Chennai and were provided food and transporation at the cost of opposite party No. 2. It (opposite party No. 2) had spent Rs. 6,899.50 at Chhennai for the complainants. Their due care was taken at Chhennai on 8.6.07. Since they were holding IAL package in Hotel Sentinal at Port Blair, the message about Hotel booking and re-routing was communicated to AMM, NACIL, Goa. Although complainants reached Port Blair on 9.6.07, all the facilities i.e. travelling by air, three nights stay in Hotel Sentinal at Port Blair, food and site seeing tours etc.,were provided as per agreement. They suffered no loss. They deny that complainants could not enjoy additional 5th day tour. Remaining averments in the complaint are not admitted by them.<br /> 3. In support of their averments contained in the complaint, complainants have produced in evidence photocopy of invoice (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Package Confirmation Voucher (Ex. C-2), affidavit of Sh. Chaman Bhalla (Ex. C-3), photocopy of letter dated 10.5.07 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of receipt (Ex. C-5), photocopies of tickets (Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-24) and photocopies of receipts cum schedule (Ex. C-25 to Ex. C-32).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties list of Air fare (Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-2), photocopy of letter dated 29.8.07 (Ex. R-3), List of charges by Radha Park Inn, Chennai (Ex. R-4), Passenger ticket and baggage check (Ex. R-5), photocopy of Domestic Passenger Sales Agency Agreement (Ex. R-6), affidavit of Sh. P K Sharma, Area Marketing Manager (Ex. R-7) and affidavit of Sh. Sunny Gurdeep Singh, Proprietor (Ex. R-8) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written briefs of arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.<br /> 6. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainants argued that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as one day of the complainants was wasted in travelling from Kolkatta to Chennai. They reached Port Blair one day late i.e. on 9.6.07. As per package confirmation voucher, they were to reach Port Blair on 8.6.07. Hence they stayed there one day less than agreed and could not enjoy the additional 5th day tour in which they were to see the sites of their own choice. In support of it, he cited authorities Indian Airlines and another Vs. B D Sharma 2006(3) CLT 676, Indian Airlines Limited and another Vs. V.S. Singh and another 2006(3) CLT 663, Indian Airlines Vs. Subrata Sinha 2005(2) CLT 26 and M/s. BMM JAY Travels and Export Ltd.,Vs. Manjeet Kaur Dhillon alias Mrs. Manu Bahl and Others 2002(1) CLT 78.<br /> 7. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Complainants are bound by the terms and conditions of the package tour. Complainants have not produced Passenger Ticket and Baggage Check containing the terms and conditions which are issued by affixing them with the Passenger Ticket. Complainants are not entitled to any compensation. They have concealed material facts.<br /> 8. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 9. Admittedly complainants had purchased Air Tickets from opposite party No. 1 which is the agent of opposite party No. 2 for travelling from Delhi to Port Blair via Kolkotta. Copy of the invoice is Ex. C-1. Opposite party No. 1 had charged Rs. 1,88,708/- i.e. Rs. 47,177/- for each of them. Copy of the package confirmation voucher is Ex. C-2. In this document as well, the name of the agency i.e. opposite party No. 1 has been recorded. Facilities which were to be provided have been mentioned in it. Complainants were to be taken from Delhi to Kolkatta by Flight No. IC-408 on 7.6.07 at 8.55 hours. They were to be taken to Port Blair from Kolkatta by Flight No. IC-287 on 8.6.07 at 5.35 hours. They were to reach Port Blair on 8.6.07 at 7.35 hours. Departure from Port Blair was by Flight No. IC-288 on 12.6.07 at 8.20 hours. They were taken from Delhi to Kolkatta on 7.6.06 at 8.55 hours as is evident from Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-8. Thereafter they were to go to Port Blair from Kolkatta as per programme given in Ex. C-2. Instead of taking the complainants to Kolkatta, they were taken to Chennai on the ground that there was no seat to fly from Kolkatta to Port Blair on 8.6.07. They were taken to Chennai by Flight No. IC-765 on 8.6.07. This is evident from Ex. C-9 to Ex. C-12. On 9.6.07, they reached Port Blair by Flight No. IC-549. This is evident from Ex. C-13 to Ex. C-16. On 12.6.07 they came from Port Blair to Kolkatta as is evident from Ex. C-17 to Ex. C-20. Status was recorded as okay as is clear from Ex. C-25 to Ex. C-32. Complainant No. 1 availed Leave Travelling Concession and copy of the letter dated 10.5.07 in this respect is Ex. C-4.<br /> 10. Complainants have not produced original or a copy of Passenger Ticket and Baggage Check containing the terms and conditions of Booking and Travelling. To the contrary, opposite parties have brought on record specimen of Passenger Ticket and Baggage Check. They have taken specific plea that terms and conditions were communicated to the complainants. Opposite parties have produced affidavit Ex. R-7 of Sh. P.K. Sharma, Area Marketing Manager to this effect. Not to speak of this, they had moved an application for production of Passenger Ticket and Baggage Check issued to the complainants. Complainants suffered statement through their counsel that they are not in their possession and power. They do not deny the receipt of this document. As per terms and conditions given in Passenger Ticket and Baggage Check, Indian Airlines reserved its right without assigning any reason to cancel, advance, reschedule, overfly or delay the commencement or continuance of the Flight or alter the stopping place or places or to deviate from the route of the journey or to change the type of aircraft in use without thereby incurring any liability in damages or otherwise to the passengers or any other person or on any ground whatsoever. This company is not liable for damage occasioned by delay in carriage by air of passengers or baggage. In these circumstances, when complainants have not proved that terms and conditions in the Passenger Ticket and baggage check were not communicated or supplied to them, they are bound by them. Opposite parties are not liable for damages. For this reference can also be made to the authority Ramesh Dudani Vs. Jet Air Limited and Others 2003(2) CLT 272. According to this authority, terms and condition for travelling by air were held binding. Complainants have not come with clean hands. Complainant No. 1 did not make mention of the Leave Travelling Concession availed by him from his employer i.e. State Bank of Patiala. Objection to this effect was taken by the opposite parties and only thereafter complainant No. 1 admitted this fact in his affidavit Ex. C-3. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities relied upon by the complainants, they are extinguishable on facts.<br /> 11. Apart from the above, complainants are not entitled to compensation on the following grounds:-<br /> Normal charges for only travelling by Air from Delhi to Port Blair and returning there from are Rs. 50,210/- for one passenger i.e. Rs. 11,840/- + Rs. 13,265/- x 2 as is clear from Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2. Package availed by the complainants included travelling by Air, lodging i.e. cost of stay at Hotel, Transport from Airport-Hotel-Airport, Break Fast, lunch, Dinner and Food items, Site Scenes etc.,<br /> Leanred counsel for the complainants could not show us that complainants were not provided with all the facilities as per package voucher Ex. C-2. It means that they availed all the facilities only for a sum of Rs. 47,177/- . They were taken to Chennai from Kolkatta on 8.6.07 by Flight No. IC-765. Requisite formalities were provided to them by way of spending Rs. 6899.50 at Chennai. Opposite party No. 2 had taken due care of them even at Chennai.<br /> 12. Complainants in para No. 7 of the complaint allege that 12.6.07 was kept for passengers including them for additional tour of Port Blair to visit the site of their own choice. Complainants themselves admit that they were to depart from Port Blair by Flight No. IC-288 on 12.6.07 at 8.20 hours. This fact has also been recorded in the package confirmation voucher, copy of which is Ex. C-2. When it is so, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainants that they could not visit the sites of their own choice on 12.6.07 particularly when they were to depart from Port Blair on 12.6.07 at 8.20 hours. Their allegations are vague. They have not mentioned the sites where they were to go and could not go. There is nothing wrong in taking them to Chennai as per terms and conditions of the Passenger Ticket and Baggage Check.. They were provided proper hotel accommodation for stay. Dinner and transportation facilities were also made available. <br /> 13. Keeping all the above referred relevant facts and circumstances in view, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved. Accordingly complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.<br /> 14. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced : <br /> 12-02-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member