AIR INDIA LIMITED Vs. D P KOCHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment we propose to dispose of two appeals, i. e. , Appeal No.1036 of 2003 as also Appeal No.1033 of 2003, as both the appeals have been filed against the same impugned order of the District Forum dated 16.4.2003 by which the complaint of Mr. D. P. Kochar was partially allowed in the following terms: ". . . The complainant must have incurred expenses for stay during night at the Air Port and he must have also suffered mental pain and agony. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case compensation of Rs.20,000 appears to be reasonable. Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.20,000 as compensation and Rs.1,000 as costs to the complainant. Compliance of the order be done within one month of the receipt of copy of this order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties. " Appeal No.1036 of 2003 has been filed by Air India (opposite party No.1 before the District Forum) for setting aside the order of the District Forum against the appellant, whereas the other Appeal No.1033 of 2003 has been filed by complainant Mr. D. P. Kochar for enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant D. P. Kochar had bought a return Air India ticket from Ottawa (Canada) to New Delhi and back on 27.9.1999. However, while he was in India, he changed his programme of departure and asked respondent No.2, i. e. , Janta Travel Pvt. Ltd. , Bharat Nagar, Ludhiana (Opposite party No.2 before the District Forum), who are the travel agents for Air India to issue a new ticket. Said travel agent issued a new Air India ticket on 14.3.2000 bearing No.098-4420-412-109, photo copy of which was attached as Annexure C-4 with the complaint. The route and the status of the ticket issued was as follows: Flight Date of Status Route Number travel AI-317 13.3.2000 O. K. Delhi-Bombay AI-101 18.3.2000 O. K. Bombay-London (Heathrow) AC-863 18.3.2000 O. K. London- Tornto It may be observed here that the ticket which was issued was on the ticket folder of Air India, which included the Air Canada Flight AC-863 on 18.3.2000 from London to Toronto.

(3.) It was alleged that when the complainant boarded the flight AI-317 at New Delhi his luggage was booked through and through to Toronto. When he reached London and went to collect his boarding pass at the Air Canada counter for boarding Air Canada Flight AC-863 on 18.3.2000, he was told that as per the bookings shown on the computer, his status was wait-listed No.1 and his seat was not confirmed and there no request had been received by Air Canada from Air India to reserve a seat for the complainant on 18.3.2000 in Air Canada Flight AC-863. He was denied his travel on AC-863 flight on 18.3.2000. However, he was put on Flight No. AC-857 the next day. He suffered great inconvenience at the Air Port as nobody looked after him despite his having a confirmed ticket of Air Canada Flight No.863. He wrote a letter from Canada to Air India in Toronto on 13.4.2000 informing as to how, despite his having confirmed ticket of Air Canada flight, he was not allowed to board the same on the ground that in fact there was no confirmation in the printout on the computer. He claimed compensation of 4000 US dollars for the inconvenience, harassment, etc. , which he allegedly suffered at London (Heathrow) Airport. A letter was received by the complainant from Air India dated 16.6.2000 (copy Annexure C-6 with the complaint), in which it was mentioned as under: "this is further to our telephone conversation of last week, as well as our letter A-18-00-0427 dated April 19, 2000 regarding your letter of complaint dated April 13, 2000 on our return trip from Delhi to Toronto, on March 18, 2000. We sincerely regret the delay in reverting back to you with respect to the incorrect reissuance of your ticket indicating that the AC flight AC 863 on March 18, 2000 from London to Toronto was confirmed. Having investigated the matter without our offices in Jullundur, Chandigarh and Ludhiana, we note that there was a mistake committed by the Air India General Sales Agency (GSA) staff, at both Chandigarh and Ludhiana. The GSA staff at Chandigarh whilst informing the Ludhiana office, of the confirmation of your flights for travel from Delhi, Mumbai and London, inadvertently also informed you that the London/toronto flight on Air Canada was also confirmed. Whilst your ticket was re-issued by the office, they should have noticed that you London/toronto flight was not confirmed, which again was overlooked. Please note, disciplinary action of the concerned staff has been taken by our office in India to ensure that such future lapses by the staff will not happen. We sincerely regret that we are unable to consider your compensation request for the problems encountered at London Airport on March, 2000. " This led the complainant to file a complaint before the District Forum, Ludhiana on 23.1.2002. After appreciating the evidence on record as also the arguments, the complaint was allowed as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal by Air India.