V K BHATNAGAR Vs. EMIRATES KANCHANJUNGA BUILDING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 12th March, 2007 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, State Commission ) vide which appeal of respondent No.1 was partly allowed.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that petitioner booked a ticket from respondent No.2- M/s Belair Travels & Cargo Pvt. Ltd. for his flight for Delhi-Dubai-Larnaca on EK Flight for 23.6.1997 with O.K. status against consideration. When petitioner reached the Airport to board the flight, he was refused on the ground that there was no booking and with much persuation and pleadings, was provided a seat upto Dubai with assurance that the connecting flight will be available at Dubai for Larnaca on 23.6.1997. After reaching Dubai Airport, petitioner was not provided a seat in the connecting flight for Larnaca and when he insisted that he had an urgent meeting at Larnaca with regard to his business otherwise he will suffer immensely, he was threatened that he will be sent back to India at his own expense from Dubai. Petitioner having no alternative came out from Airport as he was having visa for Dubai. Petitioner, at his own expense, purchased a new ticket of Kuwait Airways for Larnaca for 24.6.1997 but by the time he reached there, the meeting was already over. Accordingly, petitioner filed a complaint before District Forum.

(3.) While justifying the cancellation of the ticker, respondent No.1 took the plea that the ticket was issued by respondent No.2 for getting it confirmed but respondent No.2 had got two booking for the petitioner. Details were sought from respondent No.2 with regard to the booking made by him on 4.6.1997 vide bill No.7493 dated 16.6.1997 but no reply was received till 21.6.1997 by 12 hours. So booking was cancelled and as per rules, a person cannot have two bookings. The second booking was made on 20.6.1997 by respondent No.2 for the petitioner and on checking their reservation channel it was thus cancelled. Thus, petitioner was not having any booking. Further, petitioner was accommodated by staff of respondent No.2 of the Airport upto Dubai as he was having Dubai visa and therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1.