COZY TRAVELS Vs. S S SURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts stated by the respondents-complainants are that Gurtej Singh, complainant No.2, who is the son of complainant No.1 S. S. Puri had to go to Moscow to appear in the examination of Ist Medical Institute Saint Peterburg and had to appear in the test fixed for 28.8.1997. Complainant No.1 had made advance booking of the seat and purchased ticket from Delhi to Moscow, from respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 issued a ticket from Jalandhar for Delhi to Moscow bearing No. Cozy Travels 924-6212-2 dated 2.8.1997 on payment and confirmed the seat by endorsing ticket by computer printing. Availability of the seat was also got confirmed from opposite party No.3. The details of telephone calls made to respondent No.3 by complainant No.1 has been annexed as Annexure 'b' with the complaint. It is then averred in the complaint that the respondent No.2 reconfirmed the seat on 23.8.1997 on telephone. After confirmation of the seat by respondent No.2, both the complainants alongwith wife of complainant No.1, who happens to be the mother of complainant No.2 reached Delhi at 7 p. m. After taking some rest, they reached Indira Gandhi Airport, Delhi on 26.8.1997 at 3 a. m. The flight was to take off at 7.35 a. m. The complainant No.2 went inside the Airport. His passport, other papers and luggage were got checked by the Airport Authority. After sometime he was told by the Airport Authority that the seat allotted to him has been cancelled on 25.8.1997 and he could not travel to Moscow in flight SU-536. The complainant then went to the office of the respondent No.1 at 11 a. m. on 26.8.1997 and had to hire taxi for the visits. The complainants were told to contact respondent No.3, who is their agent. The complainant then visited respondent No.3 as directed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 told them that due to over-booking, the seat could not be provided to complainant No.2 on flight No. SU-536 and advised them to contact respondent No.3 on 27.8.1997 at 11 a. m. and was told that respondent No.3 would arrange a seat for the complainant No.2. Respondent No.3 was contacted on 27.8.1997 at 11 a. m. , who advised them to contact him again at 5 p. m. as he was not able to arrange the seat by then. Respondent No.3 was again contacted at 8 p. m. at the entry gate of the Indira Gandhi International Airport. But respondent No.3 was not available at the entry gate, which caused lot of harassment and mental tension to the complainants and their family members. The complainant No.2 then went inside the Airport with great efforts and pleadings with the Airport Authority could manage a seat on the flight, which was scheduled to take off at 11 a. m. It is then alleged in the complaint that the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- for hiring taxies from the Airport to their staying place and to the office of respondent Nos.1 and 3 and back to the Airport. The complainants alongwith their family members had to stay at Delhi on 26.8.1997 and 27.8.1997 and had to pay Rs.3,000/- as stay charges. This amount had to be incurred due to deficiency in service by respondent No.2. It is then stated in the complaint that due to delay, the complainant No.2 could not reach Moscow well in time and could not appear in the examination, which was scheduled for 28.8.1997. Certificate issued by Government Medical Union Russia has been attached with the complaint. It is further alleged in the complaint that complainant No.2 had to wait for next test, which was held on 18.9.1997, which caused mental harassment and tension to him. It is then stated in the complaint that due to deficiency in service by respondents, the complainants suffered mental/physical harassment and had to spend Rs.5,000/- more than the actual expenses for staying at Delhi for three days and complainant No.2 had to wait for 20 days for examination which was got rescheduled for 18.9.1997 with great efforts. A prayer was made in the complaint before the District Forum that the complainants be awarded a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from respondent Nos.1 to 3 as compensation alongwith costs of the complaint.

(2.) On notice being served on the opposite parties, respondent No.1 was proceeded ex parte, respondent Nos.2 and 3 had filed the reply and had taken preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint as the complainants were not covered within the definition of a consumer and also complicated questions of law and facts were involved and thus District Forum could not go into their dispute. On merits, it was admitted that complainant No.2 approached the opposite parties for purchase of ticket from Delhi to Moscow and opposite party No.2 issued the ticket of opposite party No.1, but it had been denied that the seats were confirmed. It was stated in the reply that the ticket was issued subject to the specific condition and reconfirmation of seat three days before the flight. Thus, the complainant was expected to reconfirm the seat on 23.8.1997 and confirmation on the ticket was of no validity and specific condition for reconfirmation was scribed on the ticket. It is then stated in the reply that the complainant was sought to reconfirm the seat on 22.8.1997 on telephone and he was again asked to reconfirm the ticket on 23.8.1997 at 12 p. m. He was again told that the seat was not reconfirmed. It is then stated in the reply that the validity of the seat was never confirmed and if the complainants had suffered then they had suffered due to their own lapse and not due to deficiency in service on their part. It has further been denied that the complainant had suffered any damages or he had been contacting opposite party Nos.2 and 3; rather the representative of opposite party No.3 made contacts at Indira Gandhi International Airport on 26.8.1997 and he tried his level best for the seat in next flight which was scheduled to take off at 11 p. m. and the complainants had agreed to change the flight. It is denied that complainant was to appear in the examination or he had to over-stay at Moscow and had made any expenses or had suffered any damages. Ultimately a prayer was made to dismiss the complaint. Rejoinder was filed by the complainants. In the rejoinder, the allegations made in the complaint have been reiterated and the allegations made contrary to the allegations made in the complaint have been contradicted.

(3.) After hearing the Counsel for the parties and after having gone through the record, District Forum allowed the complaint with costs and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and compensation. Costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainants were also ordered to be paid by the opposite parties.