HARINDER PAL SINGH SHAHANIA Vs. GAGAN JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where his complaint was dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. An appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the State Commission with a direction to seek remedy in Civil Court as the case shall require leading elaborate evidence, which cannot be recorded in detail in summary jurisdiction.

(2.) Very briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant desirous of travelling to London and having been a resident of Ludhiana was keen to board a flight to London from Amritsar. For this purpose he deputed his office staff to go to Jallandar for purchase of air tickets for three persons. The tickets were issued by the 1st respondent being the agent of the 2nd respondent. The allegation of the complainant was that the 1st respondent charged full fare for the child, whereas it was to be charged at a concessional rate as applicable for the child, the tickets were issued for Amritsar-London-Delhi, whereas it should have been Amritsar-London-Amritsar - the excess amount available with the 1st respondent was refunded only on 9.7.2000 i.e. before the date of filing the case before the District Forum. For all these deficiencies rendered by the respondents, a complaint was filed by the petitioner before the District Forum praying for several reliefs. The District Forum after hearing the parties, perusal of material and evidence on record, dismissed the complaint with costs. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence this petition.

(3.) It is argued by the petitioner himself who is a practising lawyer by profession - that State Commission failed to appreciate the full facts of the case. Both the lower Forums erred in not finding the respondents deficient in rendering services. He had sent Rs. 68,000/- through his office staff to the 1st respondent for issue of tickets on full fare basis - no concession was given for the child, he came to know of concessional facility for the child during the flight only. The excess money charged was not refunded in time; when it was refunded, it was done by the 1st respondent thus belying his claim that he is not a party to dealings, i.e. issue of air ticket. He had asked for a ticket, Amritsar-London-Amritsar - it was not complied with. The letter on the letterhead from Trade Wings is a fabricated document. He had no dealing with the Trade Wings - his office staff dealt directly with the 1st respondent. This is a clear case of deficiency on the part of the respondents which falls under the Consumer Protection Act - Lower Forums should have considered the facts in proper light and awarded compensation to him. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that they are not privy to dealing with the petitioner. Petitioner dealt with Trade Wings. It is the latter who approached them for issue of tickets for three. As per material on record, three tickets were issued, two full fare and third at concessional rate. Tickets were issued as per advice received from Trade Wings. First preference was for Amritsar-London-Amritsar and the second preference was Amritsar-London-Delhi. Tickets were issued to second preference as first option was not available. Excess amount was refunded. According to him, both the lower Forums were quite correct in passing the order in this case. The petition needs to be dismissed with costs. He also drew our attention to the intemprate language used by the petitioner in the memo of revision petition where words like "judgments.... look stupid" have been used by him.