NRIPENDRA KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fact of the complaint in nutshell is that the complainant purchased an Air ticket on 16.9.95 from the opposite party No.1 as its Booking office at Calcutta through a travel agent namely Travelogue India (P) Ltd. for ticketed itinerary only. The opposite parties issued on 27.9.95 a circular No.827 (R and T) notifying inter alia that its domestic Rupee Air fares were being increased by 20% on an average but the tickets issued up to the 30th September 1995 would be accepted for travel commencing on or before 14th October, 1995, at prerevised fare for ticketed itinerary only as per Clause (ii) under Broad Head II Effectiveness of the said circular. It was also stated in the said notification dated 27.9.95 under Clause (viii) of the said Broad Head II Effectiveness that "all efforts should be made to contact the passengers holding such tickets and their tickets so that last minute pressure at Air Ports is minimised. "

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner along with his wife and two sons resumed journey on 10th October, 1995 from Calcutta to Hyderabad and then from Hyderabad to Bangalore and Bangalore to Trivandrum upto 19th October, 1995 and then from Cochin to Delhi on 24th October, 1995 and Delhi to Calcutta on 25th October, 1995. It is alleged that the opposite parties did not charge enhanced fare as per notification dated 27.9.95 upto journey dated 19th October, 1995 but the opposite parties demanded extra fares of Rs.5,172/- (per head Rs.1,293) at the time of petitioner's journey with his family from Cochin Airport to Delhi Airport on 24.9.95 and that the petitioner and his family members would not be allowed to board the aircraft for journey from Cochin to Delhi unless the differential extra fares of Rs.5172/- is paid. It is the further case of the petitioner that flight from Cochin to Delhi being a biweekly flight the petitioner was to avail of the flight on 24th October, 1995 in order to avail of the flight from Delhi to Calcutta by Modiluft on the following day on 25th October, 1995 and in such compelling circumstances, the petitioner had to arrange for payment of extra fare demanded by the opposite parties by way of loan as he was in short of cash money at that time. It is further case of the complainant /petitioner that he became nervous and suffered from tension/anxiety due to uncertainty and being a Judge of Hon'ble High Court was compelled to request the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, Kerala High Court and his registrar to lend the said amount on account of extra fare as the petitioner did not have sufficient cash flow in his hand at that time. As a result, the petitioner had to stoop low, suffered indignity, dishonor, humility and insult before the persons who were then present in the V. I. P. lounge including his subordinate officials, protocol official and securities at Cochin Airport and that the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Kerala High Court assured to pay the extra fare on account of the petitioner to the opposite parties and he accordingly paid the same. Subsequently the petitioner remitted back the amount paid to him by Kerala High Court. It is alleged by the petitioner that the opposite parties illegally and wrongfully harassed and humiliated the petitioner at Cochin Airport, unlawfully pressurised the petitioner to pay the alleged extra fares and that said unwarranted situation could have been easily avoided by sending appropriate message to the petitioner message at Calcutta High Court before his journey commenced on 10th October, 1995 and that such misconduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part and accordingly is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, the petitioner prayed for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the opposite parties and for in other consequential reliefs.

(3.) Opposite parties contested the complaint petitioner by filing written statement. In the written statement the opposite party inter alia contended that from the passenger coupons of the tickets being annexure "a" to the complaint petition it reveals that the journey of the petitioner and his family members were from Calcutta to Hyderabad, Hyderabad to Bangalore and Bangalore to Trivandrum and that the original station of journey as mentioned in the passenger coupon was Calcutta and destination station was Trivandrum and that it is explicitly clear that the journey of the ticketed itinerary for Calcutta to Trivandraum and since journey commenced before 14th October, 1995 no excess fare was claimed from them for their journey from Calcutta to Hyderabad, Hyderabad to Bangalore and Bangalore to Trivandrum, in terms of sub-clause (ii) of Board Head-II-Effectiveness of the said circular and that the petitioner and his family members purchased separate tickets for their journey from Cochin to Delhi having no link or nexus with the journey from Calcutta to Trivandrum and that as the journey of the petitioner and his family members from Cochin to Delhi was not covered by the tickets for itinerary from Calcutta to Trivandrum and since the origin was Cochin and destination station at Delhi and such jouney was after 14th October, 1995, the petitioner and his family members were liable to pay the difference of fares as per revised rates applicable in such cases as per notification. It is contended by the opposite parties that the petitioner purchased the tickets on 16th September, 1995 and the petitioner came to know about the fare hike before commencement of his journey on 10th October, 1995 and the petitioner could have paid the excess amount of the fare for his journey from Cochin to Delhi by approaching the office of the travel agent or at the office of the opposite party No.1 and that if such care would have been taken the petitioner and his family members would not have faced the situation at Cochin Air Port for their journey from Cochin to Delhi on 24th October, 1995. It is stated by the opposite parties that after having come to know the status the petitioner, he was given to two options either to pay the difference at Cochin or to pay the same at Calcutta and he was allowed to journey by the flight I. C.468 leaving Cochin on 24.10.95 for Delhi upon assurance to pay the difference money at Cochin by the Registrar at Kerala High Court at Cochin and the same would be reflected. On the passenger coupon, Thereafter all materials allegations were denied by the opposite parties and it was specifically contended that had not officials of the opposite party No.1 realised extra fare, it would have been a dereliction of duty on the part of the officials of the opposite party and the actions taken by the officials of the opposite party was right and correct. There is no specific prayer rather no prayer or submission at all in the written statement for dismissing of the complaint or any other relief. DECISION