K S YADAV Vs. SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and the material on the record of the Forum.1. The case of the appellant-complainant before the D. F. was that in order to undertake a journey by air from Delhi to Adelaide via Singapore and back from Adelaide to Delhi via Singapore on 16.2.1989, the appellants had hired the services of the respondents by purchasing two tickets for Rs.15,209/- from M/s. Mayur Travels, Jaipur, which is the booking agent for respondent No.1 Singapore Airlines Limited, that at the time of purchase of the tickets the appellants were assured by the respondents of not only rendering efficient services to them but also to make reserved seats available to them at Delhi and Singapore and also at the time of their return at Adelaide and Singapore. Further case of the appellants was that although they could manage to obtain reserved seats at Delhi at the time of boarding the plane on 16.2.1989 but at Singapore no reserved seats were made available to them by the respondents and, therefore, after waiting for some time they had to travel by another airliner to Adelaide and back from Adelaide to Delhi via Singapore. The appellants, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the deficient services allegedly rendered to them by the respondents.

(2.) The case of the respondents on the other hand was that confirmed air tickets from Delhi to Singapore were given by them to the appellants and that they never made any promise or assured the appellants to provide confirmed seats/tickets to the appellants from Singapore to Adelaide and/or back from Adelaide to Delhi via Singapore. Apart from challenging the merits of the case of the appellants in that way, the respondents objected against the very maintainability of the complaint on the ground of limitation as well as jurisdiction. The D. F. agreed with the respondents insofar as the question of limitation in this case was concerned. The D. F. , therefore, non-suited the appellants on the ground of limitation.

(3.) Although the learned Counsel for the appellants tried to explain the delay admittedly committed by the appellants (sic.) in filing the complaint and in that behalf it was submitted that since the respondents continued to assure them to refund their money with or without compensation but in the year 1994 the respondents totally refused to honour their promises, but we are not satisfied with such vague explanation. Undisputedly the parties had entered into a contract for travel of the appellants by air as back as on 16.2.1989. The inconveniences, alleged to have been faced by the appellants, were faced by them either on 16.2.1989 or 17.2.1989 and thereafter from Adelaide to New Delhi sometimes in the month of February or March 1989. The appellants had preferred their claim as on 27.3.1989 and by their letter dated 12.6.1989, the respondents had refused their liability in the matter. It is thus clear that it was as back as in the month of June 1989 that the cause of action had arisen to the appellants to file a complaint, although the initial cause of action had arisen to them on 16.2.1989 to 18.2.1989. Mere exhange of letters wherein, the respondents had simply informed the appellants that they were looking into their complaint would not extend the period of limitation prescribed under Sec.24a of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . At the relevant time no such period of limitation was prescribed but the complaints were required to be filed within a period of three years after the accrual of cause of action to the complainant. By that standard, the complaint should have been filed at the most by June 1992. But the same was filed as late as on 21.5.1994. The complaint filed by the appellants was thus hopelessly time-barred and the D. F. did not err in dismissing such complaint on the ground of limitation.