MANOJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. SINGAPORE AIRLINES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is an Associate Professor in All India Institute of Medical Sciences. In order to further improve his academic qualifications, the complainant applied to the Royal College of Pathologists, London (U. K.) to appear in an examination for Diploma in Dermatopathology. The above said examination was scheduled to be held on 22.3.1994 at Hong Kong. The complainant booked his ticket for Hong Kong through his travel agent M/s. Air Travel Bureau on 8.3.1994. The complainant handed over his Passport No.689259 to his travel agent, who in turn is said to have delivered it to the Singapore Airlines General Sales Agents (GSA), M/s. Jet Air Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi for issue of an air ticket in Singapore Airlines Flight scheduled for 20.3.1994 for travel from Delhi to Hong Kong and back. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite paty negligently lost the passport of the complainant. An FIR was lodged by the opposite party with the Police Station, Hanuman Road, New Delhi on 11.3.1994 and the opposite party also informed M/s. Air Travel Bureau, the travel agent of the complainant, about the loss of the passport vide letter dated 11.3.1994. The complainant was also informed about the said loss of passport on 12.3.1994. The opposite party asked the complainant to submit an application for the issue of a duplicate passport on 15.3.1994 which was submitted at the Regional Passport Office on the same day. However, it was later discovered that the said application was incomplete as a No Objection Certificate and a Character Certificate was required to be annexed with it. It is the case of the complainant that he had to visit the Regional Passport Officer, in order to ascertain deficiency in the application and had to run to and fro, from the Regional Passport Office to All India Institute of Medical Sciences and after obtaining the necessary certificates, as mentioned above, submitted the same alongwith his application to the Regional Passport Office for the issue of a duplicate passpost. The grievance of the complainant is that from 15th to 17th March all his efforts were diverted towards completing the formalities for a duplicate passport and as such could not study or make the necessary preparations for the examination. Further because of the said loss he was put under great anxiety and mental stress, as a result of which he failed in the examination and suffered the losses as detailed in para 13 of the complaint. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 23.6.1994 to the opposite party to compensate him for the injury suffered by him, due to the negligence of the opposite party. However, since the opposite party refused to acknowledge its liability vide reply dated 20.7.1994, the complainant filed the present complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before this Commission, claiming various reliefs.

(2.) The opposite party has duly served and put in its appearance through its Counsel and filed a reply/written version. In the said reply/written version the opposite party has raised several preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the present complaint. The first preliminary objection is that the complainant has not made any averment against the opposite party regarding any deficiency in service and as such the complaint is not maintainable. The second preliminary objection is that the opposite party has rendered services in excess of its contractual obligation and were it not for the good offices of the opposite party, the complainant would not have been able to travel to Hong Kong as per schedule and as such there was no deficiency in service on its part. The third preliminary objection is that the claims preferred by the complainant, in the present complaint, have no proximity whatsoever to the cause alleged by him and that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant for undue enrichment. On merits, the opposite party has stated in its reply/written version, that there is no deficiency in service on its part as its staff had not received the passport from M/s. A. T. B. , the travel agent of the complainant nor was there any endorsement of the passport having been annexed with the exchange order left behind by M/s. ATB. It was also stated in its reply by the opposite party that it was only at the request of M/s. ATB who are travel agents of repute and considering the travel schedule of the complainant, that the opposite party had agreed to lodge an FIR for the loss of passport with the Police Station. This was done only to expedite the procedure for obtaining a duplicate passport for the complainant, which in ordinary routine would have entailed a lengthy and expensive procedure. The opposite party also submitted in its reply that the opposite party had rendered services to the complainant beyond its contractual obligations, by using its good offices and staff to ensure that the complainant got his duplicate passport and Visa in time to travel as per schedule. It is further stated that the losses alleged by the complainant, for which compensation is claimed, in the present complaint, have no nexus with the deficiency in service alleged i. e. loss of passport.

(3.) We have heard the arguments addressed by the Counsels for both the paries, and have gone through the documents/material on record. Having regard to the admitted facts of the present case, the following two issues arise for our consideration : (1) Whether in view of the given facts, there was any 'deficiency in service' on the part of opposite party, as defined in Sec.2 (1) (o) of the Act. (2) Whether the compensation claimed for losses incurred by the complainant have any proximity with the deficiency in service alleged. Refer to I above :