AIR INDIA OFFICE Vs. HARPREET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against one and the same order dated 23.8.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No.516 of 1999. The complaint was filed by the respondent Shri Harpreet Singh and his father S. Updesh Singh against M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd. and Air India Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Both the opposite parties have filed separate appeals. Appeal No.308 of 2002 has been filed by opposite party No.1-M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd. whereas Appeal No.247 of 2002 has been filed by opposite party No.1 - Air India. The facts giving rise to these two appeals may briefly be mentioned as under.

(2.) Shri Harpreet Singh, complainant had purchased an air ticket from the appellant-Air India through its travel agent-M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd. , Chandigarh owned by Shri Kamaljit Singh Cheema, Proprietor. The ticket issued to him bore No.081-34403:625:559 in respect of flight No. AI 416 which was scheduled for departure on 25.2.1999 at 11.05 and charged Rs.22,730/- vide receipt dated 23.2.1999. The copy of the receipt has been placed on record as Annexure C-1 and copy of ticket has been placed as Annexure C-2. The ticket had an OK status for journey from Delhi to Sydney via Singapore.

(3.) The complainant Shri Harpreet Singh accompanied by his relatives reached Indira Gandhi International Airport at Delhi on 25.2.1999 at 7.00 a. m. and got his ticket checked at the counter of Air India at about 8.40 a. m. when he was told that the ticket was not of OK status. It is alleged that the complainant Shri Harpreet Singh was to report at Sydney University on 1.3.1999 for higher studies. Shri Updesh Singh father of Shri Harpreet Singh contacted the Delhi Office of Air India who checked their computer list and told him that the ticket held by Shri Harpreet Singh did not figure in the computer list. The complainant was asked to wait till 10.30 a. m. but even by then, no arrangement could be made as the flight was fully booked. The complainant could not board the flight aforesaid. The complainants then approached Air India Office at Connaught Place, New Delhi and they were also unable to help and told them that no seat was available in the flights of Air India for the next three days. Thereafter, the complainant hired services of a travel agent and paid him Rs.3,000/- as fee. The said travel agent was able to persuade the Air India Authorities and the complainant No.1 was allotted seat in the next Indian Air Lines home flight at 5.40 p. m. from Delhi to Bombay and thereafter in Qantas Airways from Bombay to Sydney. It has been alleged by the complainants that acts of omission and commission of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service due to which the complainants were put to great mental tension and physical harassment as well as financial loss.