MEDHA KOTWAL LELE Vs. RUBY TOURS & TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the complainant whose consumer complaint No.11/2008 had been dismissed by the Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Pune by the judgment/order dated 30/04/2009.

(2.) The facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- Complainant is a medical practitioner of Pune. She had file consumer complaint against Ruby Tours & Travels and Aeroflot Russian Airlines alleging deficiency in service. According to her she wanted to travel to Moscow and further to Madrid in Spain and therefore, she purchased two air-tickets for herself and her daughter Ms.Lara Vijay Lele from O.P.No.2 through its agent O.P.No.1 by paying requisite fare of Rs.54,000/-. Tickets were from Mumbai to Madrid and return route was from Paris to Mumbai. In the tickets issued to her O.P.No.2 had shown route as Mumbai to Moscow and Moscow to Madrid. Plane was to change at Moscow and return route was Paris-Moscow and Moscow-Mumbai. According to the complainant she had spent Italian frank and O.P.No.1 informed her that all these countries required only Schengen Visa. Accordingly, she had applied for it from Italian Consulate, Mumbai and ultimately after checking her documents, aeroplane tickets and passport, she and her daughter were issued said Visa by Italian Consulate. She further pleaded that according to the plan, she and her daughter reported at the counter of O.P.No.2 on the night of 14/05/2004. Her documents were checked and she was permitted to board the plane of O.P.No.2. They reached Moscow on 14/05/2004 and from Moscow to Madrid, she was to take another flight of O.P.No.2. But, she was shocked to learn that she could not fly to Spain on the ground that she and her daughter had no Visa for Spain. She therefore showed them the Schengen Visa, but officials replied that the said Visa was not issued by Spain. The said official went inside the office and after sometime returned and told that O.P.No.2 had received instructions from Spanish Ministry of Interior that passengers should not be allowed to come to Madrid (Spain) since Prince of Spain was to get married a week later. It was pleaded by the complainant that she and her daughter were given baggage tags at Mumbai and it was clear that Mumbai Office of O.P.No.2 had cleared their travel right upto Madrid. According to the complainant, Mumbai Office should have remitted the instructions that they could not enter into Madrid because of prohibition imposed by Spanish Ministry of Interior. But she was told by O.P.No.2 at Moscow Airport and hence, there was deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.2 in not informing the complainant about restrictions on entry into the City of Madrid. Complainant pleaded that after several requests, official of O.P.No.2 told her that she would be sent back to Mumbai or she would be re-routed to Italy on her own expenses. But, thereafter, they finally told at 12 in the midnight that they were putting them in the Rome flight on next morning and they were not given any hotel accommodation, meal coupons or any exchange money to buy food and her tickets were stamped with the words SU Deportee Act, which caused her great trouble. Finally, complainant and her daughter reached Rome after delay of two days. She has filed consumer complaint for recovering expenses of 63,800/- and she has also claimed Rs.1 Lakh as compensation for mental agony, cost and Rs.2,000/- towards notice charges. Complainant filed affidavit and some documents in support of her complaint.

(3.) O.P.No.1 remained absent though duly served. Hence, he was proceeded ex-parte. O.P.No.2 appeared and filed written statement and affidavit. O.P.No.2 raised preliminary objection that present complaint is not maintainable as it is contrary to the provisions of Section 86 of Civil Procedure Code and they do not have any branch office in Pune and whole of the cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. According to O.P.No.2 matter is required to be decided by the Civil Court and not by the Consumer Court. O.P.No.2 denied that O.P.No.1 was their agent. O.P.No.2 pleaded that they would have informed the complainant at Mumbai itself, if they had received the instruction from Spanish Ministry well in advance and they were not guilty of deficiency in service simply because Ministry of Spanish at the eleventh hour informed that no passenger should be permitted to be entered into Madrid for a week. O.P.No.2 pleaded that they tried to help the complainant suggesting different destination and therefore, she was ultimately put to flight to Rome with extra fare instead of sending both of them back to Mumbai. O.P.No.2 pleaded that delay occurred for arriving at Madrid because of restrictions imposed by Spanish Ministry of Interior for which they cannot be held liable or responsible. They pleaded that they had extended all facilities available and issued special discounted fare for going them to Rome. Therefore, they pleaded that they were not guilty of deficiency in service as such prayed that complaint should be dismissed with cost.