ROYAL JORDANIAN Vs. SHAKUNTALA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Royal Jordanian Airlines (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') has filed the present revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to the 'State Commission') where in it had hed ther etitioner guilty of deficiency in service and passed an order in favour of Smt. Shakuntla Rani and others (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondents') who were the original complainants before the District Forum.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Respondents had obtained two confirmed tickets from the Petitioner Airlines, through M/s. Shergil Travels for Rs. 63,000 the route being Delhi-Amman-London and London- Amman-Delhi for 23.6.2003 and 10.7.2003 respectively. On reaching England, as per the requirements of the Airlines which required reconfirmation of the tickets by passengers who break their journey for more than 72 hours at least 72 hours before departure of the flight, Respondents made phone calls to the office of the Petitioner Airlines from Birmingham to confirm that they, would be flying back on 10.7.2003 and again on 8.7.2003 from Scotland even giving their contact phone numbers in both places. In response they were told that the tickets had been reconfirmed. However, when Respondents reached Heathrow Airport on 10.7.2003, they were informed by the checking staff that since they had not reconfirmed their reservations, the London-Amman sector of their ticket had been cancelled but the reservation from Amman to Delhi was intact. Respondents issued a legal notice to the Petitioner Airlines seeking compensation of Rs. 5 lakh which was repudiated by the Petitioner Airlines. The Respondents, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service. They claimed Rs. 5 lakh as compensation as also Rs. 10,000 for expenses that they had to incur in London including on two days stay in a hotel and for mental agony and harassment.

(3.) The Petitioner denied that Respondents had reconfirmed the tickets and stated that they had received a phone call from the Respondents from Birmingham only to give their contact telephone number which cannot be treated as reconfirmation. No phone call was subsequently received on this issue. Therefore, Petitioner was well within its rights to cancel the tickets in the absence of reconfirmation.