SONDHI TRAVELS Vs. JASPREET SINGH MAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh dated 23.02.2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed First Appeal No.334/07 filed by the petitioner and while maintaining the order of the District Forum, allowed the appeal of the complainants by enhancing quantum of compensation from Rs.25,000/ - to Rs.1,00,000/ -.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner / appellant Sondhi Travel is a travel agent. Complainant Jaspreet Singh Makkar with a view to migrate to Canada, approached respondent no.2 for booking of four tickets of Singapore Airlines for travel from Amritsar to Vancouver. Respondent no.2 got booked four tickets for the complainant and his family through the petitioner on 10.08.2005. The status of those tickets was mentioned as O.K., which according to the complainant means a confirmed ticket. It is the case of the complainant that when the complainant was ready for travel, he received a telephonic call from the petitioner / appellant informing that two out of the four tickets were cancelled and the tickets of his children were confirmed. It is further alleged that even the children could not travel on the flight scheduled for 02.09.2005 because they could not have entered the Canada without being accompanied by the complainant as he was the principal applicant for immigration to Canada. It is further the case of the complainant that complainant explained this position to the appellant but one Mr. Gaurav, Senior Sales Manager of the appellant instead of helping, behaved very rudely. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, respondent no.1 filed consumer complaint.

(3.) THE appellant contested the consumer complaint alleging that he is not a general sales agent for Singapore Airlines and he has nothing to do with the confirmation of tickets, which is a job of airline. It was pleaded that complaint is bad for non -joinder of Singapore Airlines because the tickets were cancelled by the airlines. It was denied that there was any person with the name of Gaurav working with the appellant. The appellant also pleaded that the tickets so issued were subject to reconfirmation atleast 72 hours before the date of travel.