NIRMAL JIT KAUR Vs. ONKAR TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur felt aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) vide which her application for setting aside the order of dismissal for default of the Complaint Case No.51 of 1998 was dismissed. This appeal has consequently been filed by the complainant seeking setting aside of order dated 10.12.2000 and praying for restoration of the complaint case.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent i. e. the Proprietor, Onkar Travels, SCO No.10-12, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. We have also perused the record of the case which was summoned from the District Forum-II and have also perused the order which is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) The appellants filed the complaint under Sections 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Act), praying for compensation for the loss suffered by them due to insufficient and deficient service provided by the opposite party. It appears that the complainants approached the opposite party for purchase of Return Airway Ticket from Delhi to Moscow and Moscow to Milan and paid Rs.46,000/- which included the price of tickets and service charges. The tickets were issued on 7.5.1997 and on 18.3.1997. The complainants were assured that the tickets were complete in all respect and were of O. K. category. The complainants went to Milan and after spending holiday there, they approached the Air Authorities of Venice for returning to Delhi. The complainants were told that the tickets issued to them were not of O. K. category and were on waiting list up to last week of August, 1997. The complainants contacted the opposite party on telephone from Italy and were told to clear the position. The opposite party is alleged to have assured on telephone that it was their fault and suggested the complainants to come after purchasing new tickets and they would be compensated adequately in terms of money on arriving in India. The complainants purchased fresh tickets at the costs of Rs.47,000/- and spent a sum of Rs.2,500/- on taxi from Italy Airport to Airport Venice. They also spent a sum of Rs.2,000/- on telephone from Italy to Chandigarh. The husband of the complainant who is working in Italy lost three working days and compensation for the loss was assessed at Rs.6,600/-. The complainants on arriving in India contacted the opposite party and asked them to compensate for the said loss but the opposite party refused to entertain the claim of the complainants and it was under these circumstances that the complaint case was filed. This complaint case was fixed for hearing on 12.6.2000 on which date the complainants failed to appear before the District Forum-II and as a result of the absence of the complainants, the complaint was dismissed on the said date i. e.12.6.2000. Presence of Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate was recorded for the opposite party. Subsequently, restoration application was moved on behalf of the complainants wherein it was alleged, inter alia, that 12.6.2000 happened to be a gazetted holiday and the Courts at Chandigarh did not work. On 13th June, 2000, there was resolution by the General House meeting of the District Bar Association to abstain from work due to sudden death of Shri Inderjit Nischal, Advocate, member of the Bar. The said resolution also contended a direction to abstain from work in Consumer Courts and Labour Courts. It was alleged that the Counsel for the complainants bonafide believed that the cases fixed on 12.6.2000 would automatically be adjourned to some other date. It was also mentioned that the Courts remained closed from 15.6.2000 to 1st July, 2000 due to summer vacations. In the first week of July, the complainants came to know that the complaint case had been dismissed in default on 12.6.2000. The cause of non-appearance before District Forum-II on 12.6.2000 has been mentioned in para 6 as under : "6. That the non-appearance of the applicant on 12.6.2000 was due to bona fide impression of the applicant that Consumer Forum will not be working on the particular date. "