MOHINDERJIT SINGH SETHI Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the complainant before the State Commission. Alleging deficiency in service by the respondent Indian Airlines, petitioner-complainant sought compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. While the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that there was no deficiency in service, State Commission on appeal filed by the petitioner set aside the order of the District Forum and awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner towards harassment undergone by him along with Rs. 2,000/- as costs of litigation. State Commission thus allowed the complaint to an extent. There was direction of payment of interest as well @ 9% per annum in case the amount as awarded is not paid within three months from the date of receipt of the order which is dated May 11, 2001.

(2.) Petitioner who is a Senior Advocate along with members of his family which consisted of his wife, his Advocate son, his daughter-in-law and an infant grand child, had confirmed tickets for travel by the respondent-Airlines for 2.7.1994 which was Saturday, from Leh to Chandigarh. Both the petitioner and his son are practising lawyers in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Petitioner had gone to Leh for holidaying. He had bought five tickets from Chandigarh Office of the Airlines on 22.6.1994. On 30.6.1994, as advised, petitioner checked the local office of the Airlines about his booking for his flight back to Chandigarh on 2.7.1994. He was shocked to learn that there was no flight from Leh to Chandigarh on 2.7.1994 and that there was a flight to Chandigarh a day earlier i.e. on 1.7.1994. According to the respondent, however, petitioner approached the local office of the Airlines at Leh on 28.6.1994 for reconfirmation of his tickets when he was informed that there was no flight on 2.7.1994 and in case petitioner desired to travel 1.7.1994 seats could be confirmed for the flight on that day. It is also the contention of the Airlines that the petitioner was, however, not prepared to accept its proposal to fly on 1.7.1994. Petitioner with his family did travel on 2.7.1994 from Leh to Jammu. He surrendered his tickets from Leh to Chandigarh and got the tickets from Leh to Jammu. He got the balance amount due on the tickets from Leh to Chandigarh. From Jammu to Chandigarh family of the petitioners had to travel by car for which petitioner sought reimbursement of his claim for Rs. 3,500/- which was agreed to by the Airlines and petitioner did get the payment by means of cheque dated 18.3.1994 which was duly encashed by him. Airlines says that this amount was paid to the petitioner purely as a gesture of goodwill. Contention of the petitioner is that his holidays and that of his family members were destroyed after he learnt that there was no flight on 2.7.1994. Rather his plans for holidays were totally upset causing a great deal of inconvenience, harassment and mental tension and all the time was spent in getting Airlines' tickets at least from Leh to Jammu for the flight on 2.7.1994. While the petitioner says he was able to get seats to go to Jammu from the army and air force quota, this has not been accepted by the Airlines who says that additional flight was operated on 2.7.1994 and utmost courtesy was shown to the petitioner inasmuch as he was accommodated over and above the wait-listed passengers. Thus alleging that though he was having confirmed tickets for a flight on 2.7.1994 and when there was no flight on that day and the tickets had been confirmed as far back on 22.6.1994 petitioner alleged it was a clear case of negligence on the part of the Airlines entitling him to compensation for the harassment and mental agony undergone by him and his family members' holidays becoming a disastrous.

(3.) District Forum after considering the rival contentions of the parties and examining the record came to the conclusion that no deficiency in service could be attributed to the Airlines and rather petitioner saved some expenses due to positive attitude of the Airlines in rendering him proper service. State Commission however, held otherwise and awarded compensation to the petitioner as aforementioned. Petitioner wants enhancement of the amount of compensation and for that purpose he has approached the National Commission.