STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS

PORT BLAIR

                                                                                                             Appeal Case No.04 of 2003

Present:                                                                                                                                               1. Justice S.N. Bhattachaijee

                                                                                                                                                                 President, State Commission

                                                                                                                                                                 2. Shri D.P. Mukhopadhyay

                                                                                                                                                                    Member, State Commission

Lt. Cdr. Subodh Kumar                                                                                                Appellant

-Vs

Station Manager,

Indian Airlines                                                                                                              Respondent

This is an appeal preferred against order dated 12.9.203 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Andaman District, Port Blair. The appellant herein was the complainant before the forum. The appellant Ld Cdr Subodh Kumar purchased air tickets for to and fro journey from Port Blair to Chennai and back for 3’ November, 2002 and 26’ November, 2002 from respondent No. 2 an authorized agent under respondent No. I and the said tickets were okayed by the respondent No.

1. The appellant left for Chennai on 9^th November, 2002. On his return jou rney on 26.11.2002 when the appellant reached Chennai airport at scheduled time and date the duty officer of the respondent NO.lat Chennai intimated that there was no scheduled flight from Chennai to Port Blair on 26.11.2002. The appellant informed the duty officer of respondent NO. 1 that he was a defence personnel and in the event of his failure to reach Port Blair on that very day he would have to face various service problems under the defence discipline. The duty officer not only refused the appellant to make some alternative arrangements but also misbehaved with him and finding no other alternative the appellant went to the Manager on duty at Chennai airport who also at the first instance refused to make any arrangements. But subsequently on the insistence of the appellant the Manager made arrangements for travelling by Jet Airways flight and the appellant reached Port Blair on the same date. The appellant was aggrieved and suffered humiliation and tension as the respondent NO. 1 after having declared a ticket for the flight on 26.11.2002 which was a unscheduled flight did not express regret and repentance for committing the mistake and misbehaved with the appellant by refusing to make alternative arrangements at the first instance. He* therefore lodged a complaint before the District Forum demanding a compensation of Ra. 3,60,16W- against the respondents. The respondent No. 1 contested the case by denying Its responsibility for payment of compensation as the mistake, if any, was committed by the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 2 also took the plea that it was un-intentional mistake of the staff of the respondent No. 2, who mentioned the date of flight as 26.11.2002 instead of 27.11.2002. He denied the story of mistake of the duty Manager who took the complainant to the Station Manager who on the application of the complainant made arrangements with Jet Airways after releasing the excess charge for a flight by Jet Airways.

The learned Member of District Forum held that OP No. 2/respondent NO. 2 was liable to repay the excess amount of Rs 1,160/- to the appellant who was required  to pay the same for his flight by Jet Airways It was further held that as there is no satisfactory evidence regarding damage of reputation and of mental agony the appellant was not entitled to any further amount of compensation.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the claimant has come up with this appeal. The only question before us is whether the District Forum erred in law in disallowing the claim of compensation on the grounds of harassment and mental agony caused to the appellant due to issuance of a ticket for unscheduled date of flight It has been argued before us that the District Forum fail, to appreciate the mental agony and tension the appellant had to suffer on getting the information that there was no scheduled flight of Indian Airlines on 26.11.2002. We note that regarding misbehaviour there is no corroboration of the allegations leveled by the appellant against the respondent No. 1. Mental agony and tension is a subjective state of mind with which a defence personnel is expected to be associated with in a greater  degree they an ordinary civil person. The respondent cannot said to have any mala fide motive nor the intention to harass the appellant who is an unknown personality to the respondents. There may be some confusion and exchange of words at that moment between the parties which hardly call for compensation particularly when alternative arrangements were made at the instance of the respondent NO.1. We are all exposed and vulnerable to such types of stress and strains. Such are exceptional circumstances from which a defence personnel also cannot claim exemption from.

                                           We are,therefore,of the opinion that the refusal of compensation on this ground by the District Forum cannot be held to be illegal calling for interference by us. We are therefore not inclined to allow the appeal and the same is dismissed. No cost.