V K S ADIGAL Vs. PRIME TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has filed the present complaint under Sec.17 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The case of the complainant, briefly stated, is that the son of the complainant is a Non-Resident-Indian based at Chicago, USA. His marriage had been arranged by his parents i. e. the complainant and his family with a well-educated girl from Trinvandrum i. e. Ms. Sreelakshmi Narayanan. The said wedding was duly solemnised and the newly married couple were to return to Chicago together on 20.2.2001. The son of the complainant as per his programme had already got his return ticket confirmed from Delhi to Chicago on Air India Flight No. A1-123 scheduled to depart from Delhi on 20.2.2001 at 6.05 a. m. Accordingly the complainant purchased a ticket for his daughter-in-law, Ms. Sreelakshmi Narayanan, on 18.12.2000 through O. P. Nos.1 and 2, so that the newly wed bride could accompany her husband on the same flight. On the assurance of O. P. Nos.1 and 2 that the daughter-in-law of the complainant would be issued a confirmed ticket of the same flight of Air India by which his son would be travelling, the complainant made the requisite payment and purchased a ticket which was assured to be a confirmed ticket on the flight No. A1-123 for Chicago. However in order to confirm the status of the seat booked for his daughter-in-law the complainant approached O. P. No.3, the office of Air India on 19.2.2001 i. e. one day prior to the date of departure. It was revealed on verification at the counter of O. P. No.3 that no such name existed in the list of passengers scheduled to travel by the Flight No. A1- 123 on 20.2.2001 and that the ticket was fictitious. Accordingly the complainant rushed to O. P. Nos.1 and 2 who again assured the complainant that the ticket was genuine and that the daughter-in-law of the complainant would be able to travel by the said confirmed ticket as per schedule. Going by the above said assurance of O. Ps.1 and 2, the complainant, alongwith his family and relatives, reached the airport to see off the newly married couple. However the daughter-in-law of the complainant was not allowed to board the flight in question on 20.2.2001 on account of the fact that her name was not listed in the list of passengers for the aforesaid flight. As such the daughter-in-law of the complainant had to bid a tearful farewell to her husband and all the relatives and friends of the complainant including his family had to suffer the inconvenience and embarrassment of the situation on account of the fraudulent and illegal acts of the O. Ps. As such the complainant filed the present complaint claiming a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- as compensation for the loss and damages suffered by him and his family together with interest @ 18% per annum, as well as, cost of the present proceedings.

(2.) Notice of the present appeal was served to O. Ps 1 and 2 only and one Ms. Kavita Saini, Advocate appeared on behalf for the said O. Ps. on 15.10.2001 with a request for grant of further time for filing reply/written version. However since none appeared on behalf of the O. Ps on the next date of hearing nor filed any reply/written version, the O. Ps. were proceeded ex parte vide orders/proceedings dated 3.5.2002.

(3.) The complainant filed his own affidavit by way of evidence, accompanied by the relevant documents, in support of the averments made in the complaint.