State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Air India Limited vs Tarsem Singh Soch on 25 May, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 25-05-2007 Appeal No. FA-685/2005 (Arising from the order dated 26-04-2005 passed by District Forum(New Delhi), K.G. Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.OC/1743/2003) Air India Limited, Appellant Through its Managing Director, Through Hansalaya Building 5th Floor, Mr. T.S. Sindhu, 15, Barakhamba Road, Advocate. New Delhi-110001. Versus Shri Tarsem Singh Soch,, Respondents R/o B-123, Sector-30, In person. NOIDA-201303, Gautam Budh Nagar (UP). Smt. Suridner Kaur Soch, R/o B-123, Sector 30, NOIDA-201303, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.). CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms.Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Respondents purchased open pre-paid return tickets from the appellant for their journey from Delhi to Toronto and vice-versa and on his return journey the seats were not available for the date the respondents intended to travel. However, the appellant offered to upgrade category of payment against extra charges of Rs. 10,000/- for each ticket. Since the respondents were to reach Delhi on the same day because of some urgency, they paid Rs. 20,000/- and returned to Delhi. Since he suffered pecuniary loss he filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of charges of Rs. 20,000/- as well as compensation for inconvenience caused to them.
2. While allowing the complaint, the District Forum vide its order dated 25-04-2005 directed the appellant to refund Rs. 16,000/- against over-charges as well as Rs. 25,000/- as compensation with 9% interest.
3. Through this appeal, the impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the tickets obtained by the respondent were open tickets and were subject to availability of the seats of the particular category and since the tickets were not available on the date when the respondent chose to travel, the request for upgrading the ticket was allowed by charging extra payments.
4. On the contrary the respondent has contended that he intimated the appellant one month in advance about the journey and therefore preference was to be given to the person who was holding open ticket.
Merely because the ticket was open ticket does not mean that he could have been made to wait for six months.
5. We agree with the respondent. Whenever open tickets are issued the minimum expectation of the consumer is that at least he should get the seats by informing 15 days or 20 day or one month in advance. If that too does not happen and he is told that seats are not available, it is unfair trade practice and amounts to deficiency in service as person holding open tickets have paid the consideration well in advance and have therefore to be treated on preferential basis.
6. The concept of open ticket does not mean that if it is valid for six months the person should be asked to wait for six months on the pretext that the seats are not available. It is highly unfair trade practice because Airlines takes consideration well in advance from the person whom they issue ticket and if they still do not make seats available if he intimated well in advance about the intended journey the holder of ticket suffers immense financial loss as well as mental agony and harassment and emotional sufferings. However, since the respondent had undertaken the journey on that date by getting the category upgraded, he had suffered pecuniary loss of Rs. 20,000/- and therefore the appellant was liable to compensate the respondents not only to the actual loss suffered by them but also towards cost of litigation as well as compensation which in our view, may be Rs. 10,000/- or so.
7. In the result, we partly allow the appeal by maintaining the direction to the appellant to refund Rs. 20,000/- as over-charges for upgrading the ticket and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation.
8. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
9. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
10. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
12. Announced on the 25th May, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj