NITIN S KEKRE Vs. SPEED BIRDS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the complainant is directed against the order dated 16.5.2006 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai disposing of appeal against the order dated 12.3.2001 of a District Forum with direction to the respondents/ opposite parties to refund the fare from Kuala- Lumpur to Chennai to the petitioner. Petitioner was, however, ordered to pay Rs. 4,000 as cost in the complaint and another sum of Rs. 4,000 towards cost in the appeal to the respondents. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to the respondents to pay amount of Rs. 25,000 as compensation for mental agony, Rs. 25,000 towards air fare and other expenses and Rs. 4,000 as cost to the petitioner.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner who has been working as Reader in the Department of Urology Unit-ILChristianMedical College andHospital, Vellore wanted to attend the World Congress of Endourology from 11.11.1996 to 14.11.1996 at Melbourne. He also wanted to visit for a week the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia on the invitation from Dr. Paddy Dewan, Paediatric Urologist in that hospital. He was invited to attend 6th Urological Conference at Malacca in Malaysia from 22.11.1996 to 24.11.1996. So, the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 for booking tickets and obtaining visas. He handed over his passport and letters of invitation as demanded by respondent No. 1. Inmid October 1996, the opposite party No. 1 got a visa for the petitioner for visiting Australia. He was informed that the visa tovisit Malaysia would be processed only after the return flight ticket from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras was confirmed. Amount of Rs, 38,045 was paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 under Invoice No. 2056 dated 2.11.1996. Respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to get the visa from Malaysian Consulate at Madras. Respondent No. 1 who was in constant touch with petitioner, informed the petitioner that he had got confirmation for return ticketfor 29.11.1996 and he was trying to get that date changed to 26.11.1996 as desired by the petitioner. On 6.11.1996, the respondent No. 2 gave to the petitioner ticket No. 081 4495162238 for the route Madras - Singapore - Melbourne - Adelaide - Sydney -Kuala Lumpur - Madras and confirmed the status of booking as O.K. from Air India for 29.11.1996. Petitioner was told by respondent No. 2 that he was wait listed for 26.11.1996 on Air India from Kuala- Lumpur to Madras. After reaching Melbourne, the petitioner contacted the officers of Quantas Airways Limited from whom he came to know that he had neither confirmed reservation for 29.11.1996 nor was he waitlisted for 26.11.1996. He was advised by Ms. Aylic, Quantas Desk 153 to contact Quantas Airways Office at Adelaide where he was informed that the yellow sticker on his ticket was fraud and had no authorization from Air India. Petitioner was also informed by Quantas Airways that no seat was available in the flight from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras till 3rd week of December 1996 and only option was to update the ticket to club class so that the petitioner could fly out of Kuala-Lumpur on 26.11.1996. Petitioner alleged that he had not the sufficient foreign currency to purchase ticket for club class. With the help of a doctor friend, the petitioner by spending 800 Malasian Dollars got a ticket for economy class from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras. Petitioner thereafter got issued a notice dated 11.3.1997 through his Advocate on respondent No. 1 and Air India to which a reply through Counsel containing false averments was sent on 6.5.1997 byrespondentNo.l.In the reply dated 17.3.1997, Air India confirmed that there was no reservation for travel from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras either for 26.11.1996 or 29.11.1996. Petitioner stated that he suffered mental agony as he did not have much foreign currency in foreign country. He was disappointed as he did not attend the conference(s) for which he undertook the journey. Direction was sought to be passed against both the respondents to pay Rs. 2 lakh jointly and severally as compensation for having prevented him from taking part in the conference(s) and to have his knowledge enriched, pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation towards mental agony and pay Rs. 50,000 towards return air freight and other expenses incurred by the petitioner.

(3.) Both the respondents contested the complaint by filing a joint written version. It was admitted that the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 for booking air ticket to Australia for the purpose of attending a conference there. He, however, did not mention about any conference to be attended at Malaysia. It was denied that the petitioner gave letters of invitation to attend conference as demanded by respondent No. 1 as alleged. It was stated that the petitioner asked respondent No. 1 that his return journey from Australia may be routed through Kuala-Lumpur as he was to visit his friend there. Respondent No. 1 obtained visa for the petitioner for visiting Australia. Visa for Malaysia was arranged by the petitioner himself. It was denied that the respondents informed the petitioner that visa to Malaysia would be processed only after the return flight ticket from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras was confirmed. Petitioner insisted that return ticket from Kuala- Lumpur to Madras be booked for 26.11.1996, even though he was informed that no ticket was available for that date. Upon petitioner's insistence, ticket was booked for 29.11.1996 which was wait listed as on 30.10.1996. It was denied that petitioner was in constant touch with respondent No. 2 to know the progress made in the booking of air tickets. Respondent No. 2 is an employee of respondent No. 1. It was denied that ticket was handed over to the petitioner on 6.11.1996. It was further denied that after reaching Melbourne, the petitioner contacted the officers of Quantas Airways Limited and through whom he came to know that he had neither confirmed reservation for 29.11.1996 nor was he wait listed for 26.11.1996. Respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner at the time of handing over the ticket that return journey had to be re-confirmed on reaching Australia since Quantas Airways Limited had arrangements with Air India for part of the return journey. It was denied that petitioner was told by Ms. Aylic at Quantas Desk 153 to contact Quantas Airways office at Adelaide and there it was told that the yellow sticker on his ticket was A fraud and respondents had no authorization from Air India to issue such a sticker. It was further denied that petitioner did nothave sufficient foreign currency topurchase a ticket for club class and he had to fly upto Madras from Kuala-Lumpur in economy class by purchasing ticket with the help of a doctor friend. Complaint was stated to be bad for nonjoinder of Quantas Airways. Liability to pay the amount claimed was emphatically denied.