(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 8.5.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II] in Complaint Case No.399 of 1997. The respondent Shri Harcharan Singh filed the said complaint case against the appellant - Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd. located at SCO No.40-41, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,360/- for deficiency in service on the part of the appellant - Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd.
(2.) The relevant facts of the case may be mentioned as under :
(3.) Shri Sukhpal Singh son of the respondent/complainant Shri Harcharan Singh was under-going MBBS Degree Course at Kieve, Capital of Ukraine formerly part of USSR. Shri Harcharan Singh was providing financial assistance to his son Shri Sukhpal Singh who was solely dependent on him. Shri Sukhpal Singh came to India to visit his parents during his holidays in July, 1997 and he was due to resume his studies at Kieve on 1.9.1997. The respondent/complainant contacted the appellant - Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd. for getting air ticket booked for his dependent son Shri Sukhpal Singh by Air Ukraine and paid the amount of the ticket and the charges of the opposite party amounting to Rs.800/- for which a receipt was issued by the opposite party. A photocopy of the receipt has been placed on record as Annexure C-1. The receipt is in the name of Shri Sukhpal Singh and is for a sum of Rs.800/- as advance. The appellant got air ticket booked by Air Ukraine for 21.8.1997. The flight was scheduled to leave Delhi at 20.10 hrs. A photocopy of the ticket has also been placed on record along with Annexure C-1. Shri Sukhpal Singh accompanied by his brother Shri Sukhcharan Singh left for Delhi by Shatabadi Express to get the flight to Kieve. Both the brothers reached I. G. I. Airport, New Delhi and when they presented the ticket for issuance of a boarding ticket, they learnt that this ticket was not confirmed. Consequently, Shri Sukhpal Singh could not take the flight and his efforts in approaching the higher authorities of the Air Ukraine to accommodate him on the flight did not bear any fruits. It is alleged that when both the brothers were returning to Chandigarh, Shri Sukhpal Singh was involved in some accident and he sustained injuries for which he was treated at Delhi. Shri Sukhpal Singh on his return to Chandigarh informed his father Shri Harcharan Singh - respondent about his not being able to catch the flight because of the ticket being not confirmed. The respondent contacted the appellant who assured him to look into the matter and provide a confirmed ticket. It is alleged that a confirmed ticket by the same airlines was procured for 25.8.1997 showing the O. K. status and the same was handed over to the respondent/complainant. As the luck would have it, Shri Sukhpal Singh this time also could not board the said flight as he was again told that the ticket was not a confirmed ticket and there was no seat available on the said flight. Shri Sukhpal Singh had to come back to Chandigarh. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant again approached the appellant/opposite party and complained to him as to why he was being unnecessarily harassed. It is alleged that the appellant once again assured the complainant and told the complainant that it was due to some error in the computer that Shri Sukhpal Singh could not be shown as a confirmed passenger. In the third attempt, the appellant got the ticket booked for 28.8.1997 by Air Ukraine. Unluckily, on the third time also, the same story repeated and Shri Sukhpal Singh could not catch the flight due to the ticket being not confirmed. This time, it is alleged, Shri Sukhpal Singh contacted the higher authorities of Air Ukraine who informed him about a special flight being arranged which will leave Delhi on 1.9.1997 and they promised to accommodate Shri Sukhpal Singh on the special flight. The ticket held by Shri Sukhpal Singh was confirmed for the special flight leaving on 1.9.1997.