DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 421 of 3.10.2016
Decided on: 5.7.2017
Harvinder Singh Chawla son of Sh.Harbans Singh R/o H.No.12 St.no.4, Guru Nanak Nagar, Jhill Road, Tripuri Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Air India Limited through Air Lines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Road, New Delhi, 110001.
2. Guru Karan Travels through its Prop. near Gurudwara Dukhniwaran Sahib, Sirhind Road, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.J.S.Sandhu,Advocate,counsel for complainant.
Sh.S.R.Chaudhary, Advocate,
counsel for Opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Harvinder Singh Chawla, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To refund Rs.30682/-spent for cancellation of two air tickets of Air India flight scheduled for 21.6.2016
- To pay Rs.1800/- paid as taxi charges
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to her
- To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses
2. In brief, the case of the case of the complainant is that he alongwith his daughter Dr.Lavneet Kaur Chawla had to go in West Chester Country Health Care Corporation Woods Road Valhala, New York, as his daughter who is a qualified M.B.B.S. doctor got admission in M. D. there. The complainant was having multiple visa for visiting U.S.A and his daughter was having HIB visa for three years for U.S.A. It is averred that on 14.6.2016 his daughter Dr.Lavneet Kaur Chawla got visa from USA embassy with clause “Not valid for travel until 21 June 2016”. The OP No.2 is the authorized agent of airlines and is doing business for so many years. On 15.6.2016, complainant got booked two air tickets from Op No.2 i.e. Guru Karan Travels, Patiala . It is pertinent to mention here that op no.2, checked his and his daughter’s documents /visas and sent the same to Op no.1 and thereafter booked the confirmed tickets for 21.6.2016 for 1.45AM. On 20.6.2016, at about 10.30 P.M., complainant alongwith his daughter reached at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi at Air India counter and were attended by one Ms. Sona Kumari for issuance of boarding passes, who did not allow Dr. Lavneet Kaur Chawla to travel for the scheduled flight and insisted that before 22.6.2014 complainant and his daughter could not enter U.S.A. She told that there were vacant seats for next day’s flight of Air India i.e. of 22.6.2016 at 1.45 AM. Under the compelling circumstances, they were left with no other alternative but to go to the ticket counter to get the air tickets booked for 21.6.2016 cancelled and to purchase new air tickets for 22.6.2016 for which he was forced to pay an additional amount of Rs.30682/-. He was also forced to return from the airport to Rajouri Garden New Delhi and burdened with Rs.900/-as taxi charges. Again on 21.6.2016 he had to hire a taxi to reach I.G.I. Airport from Rajouri Garden to New Delhi and paid Rs.900/-again as taxi charges. The complainant also made a complaint on the website of Air India on 26.6.2016 for the misbehavior and harassment caused to him by the official of Air India but to no effect. He also got sent a legal notice dated 2.8.2016 upon the OPs but all in vain. This act of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service on their part which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice OP no.1 appeared through counsel and filed the written version whereas none appeared on behalf of Op no.2 despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.11.2016.
In the written version filed by Op no.1, preliminary objections have taken that OP No.2 M/s Gurukaran Travels, Patiala is not its approved agent, therefore, no deficiency can be attributed on its part for the acts of commission and omission of Op no.2; that the confusion seemed to have arisen because of two different interpretations for “not valid for travel until 21.6.2016’ were being placed on the stipulation in the USA visa. The complainant felt that he could travel on 21st June, whereas the view expressed by Ms Sona Kumari, AI official, was that she could not. It is submitted that word “until’ covers the period up to and included the date June 21st i.e. the complainant could not travel until 21st June . On merits, it is stated that the AI official , Ms Sona Kumari, at the counter was perfectly right in advising the complainant that in terms of stipulation on the Visa, Dr.Lavneet Kaur Chawla, could not be allowed to travel on Air India’s flight, departing at 0145 hrs on 21.6.2016. Her advice regarding the availability of next day’s flight was the right advice. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP no.1 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA, affidavit of Miss Meenu Sodhi,Ex.CB alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C20 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for Op no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of R.K.Negi, Station Manager, Air India (NACIL),Chandigarh, Ex.OPA alongwith documents Exs.OP1 & OP2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. From the copy of Visa Ex.C5, issued to Lavneet Kaur,daughter of the complainant, it is evident that same was issued by the United States of America with the stipulated condition ‘not valid for travel until 21.6.2016’. As per complainant the word ‘until’ excludes the day to which it relates. To substantiate this fact, he has produced some papers, downloaded from the website, to show what is ‘until’ as per ‘the law dictionary’, The same were taken on record and Marked as ‘A’. On the other hand, the stand of OP no.1 is that ‘until’ includes the specified day (or period).In support of this contention, OP no.1 has also placed on record a document Ex.OP1. As per ‘law dictionary’ the word ‘until’ excludes the day to which it relates; but will be con-strued otherwise, if required by the evident intention of the parties. It may be stated that American embassy issued the visa to Lavneet Kaur,with a stipulated condition ‘Not valid to travel until 21.6.2016’, meaning thereby American Embassy intended that Lavneet Kaur was not valid to travel on 21.6.2016. Thus, as per the meaning of ‘until’, according to ‘law dictionary’, the complainant’s daughter was not valid to travel on 21.6.2016. As such by not allowing the daughter of the complainant to board the flight which was scheduled for 21.6.2016 at 1.45AM , the OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Consequently, we dismiss the same without any order as to cost. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:5.7. 2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
