CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER INDIAN AIRLINES Vs. P LALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 17.2.95 of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras upholding the order of the District Forum dated 28.9.94 by which it directed the petitioner herein and opposite party No. 3 (Travel Agent) to pay to the complainant the fare of Rs. 2,489/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 17.5.91 and costs of Rs. 250/-.

(2.) THE facts are not in dispute and may be noticed. The complainant had purchased an Indian Airlines ticket on 9.5.91 for Sector Ahmedabad-Bombay-Madras for Rs. 2,489/-from opposite party No. 3 for travel on 17.5.91. The departure of the flight was noted as 2045 hours. However, there was a change on 8.5.91 in the flight schedule defective from 15.5.91 and the said flight was advanced to 1925 hours. The opposite parties did not communicate the change of flight schedule to the complainant. The complainant reached the Airport at Ahmedabad on 17.5.91 at 1945 hours when he was informed that the plane had left for Bombay at 1920 hours according to revised schedule. Alleging deficiency in service of the opposite parties, in their failure to note down the correct time of departure of the flight on 9.5.91 when the schedule was revised on 8.5.91 and further failure to communicate a change in the flight schedule to the complainant, if it was wrongly entered, the complaint was filed and allowed by the District Forum, as already noticed.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The complainant had purchased an Indian Airlines Ticket on 9.5.91 for Sector Ahmedabad-Bomaby-Madras for Rs. 2,489/-from the Travel Agent for travel on 17.5.91. At that time the departure of the flight from Ahmedabad was noted as 2045 hours despite the fact that on 8.5.91 a change in the flight schedule effective from 15.5.1991 had been announced by the Indian Airlines. The departure time for the flight IC-604 was revised from 2045 hours to 1925 hours and this change in the schedule was communicated to all the Agents of the Indian Airlines and other Airlines by means of circular dated 8.5.91 and also by way of publications in newspapers. As copy of the Circular dated 8.5.91 was despatched to the Travel Agent opposite party No. 3 on 9.5.91 and this was clearly established on the record by tendering the documentary evidence. It is clearly established that it was the negligence of the Travel Agent in noting the schedule of flights as 2045 hours at the time of issue of ticket on 9.5.91, despite the fact of change in the schedule effective from 15.5.91 had been notified. In case the complainant had purchased the ticket from the third opposite party before the receipt of the changed schedule, it was the duty and responsibility of the Agent to inform the complainant about any change in the time schedule. There was no negligence established on the part of the Indian Airlines. In the aforesaid case this Commission held: "