National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Express Travels vs M.R. Shah And Ors. on 6 May, 2002
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. President
1. These two appeals by the Airlines (FA No. 765 of 1994) and Travel Agent (FA No. 757 of 1994) are directed against the common order of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holding them guilty of deficiency in service and awarding compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to each of the complaints. Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded as costs to each of the complainants. In the complaint, the complainant had claimed damages over Rs, 4,20,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a., apart from the costs.
2. It is a tale of two young couples who immediately on their marriage wanted to go to Kulu-Manali for their Honeymoon. They are the residents of Ahmedabad. They were to go by Jagson Airlines flight from Delhi to Kulu on 26.4.92 and return from Kulu by air on 2.5.1992. They got four tickets confirmed from Express Travels, an authorised travel agent of Jagson Airlines. All the four travelled to Delhi by train and reported at the airport much before the time shown on the tickets. At the airport, they were told that the aircraft had already taken off at 12 noon while the time shown on the tickets was 13.15 hrs. Complainants had already done their hotel booking at Kulu-Manali and they went to Kulu-Manali by hiring a taxi which took 17 hrs. to reach there. They said that at that time, there was a lot of terrorists activities in the State of Punjab from where they had to pass through and they were in great mental tension and suffered hardships.
3. It appears there was no end to the ordeal of the complainants for their flight back to Delhi. They reported at the Kulu airport on 2.5.1992. They were given boarding passes after their baggage had been checked in. They waited at the airport for a long time when they were told that the flight had been cancelled. Since the complaints had already been booked by flight, they, it appears, were short of money. They, therefore, requested the airlines to refund the price of the air ticket. This was denied to them. Airlines also refused to make any arrangement for their stay in hotel or to grant them any other facility. This was normal courtesy expected of the airlines after the flight was cancelled without notice, particularly when they had already been given boarding passed. With great difficulty the complainants were able to come to Delhi by engaging a taxi as they had no other alternative. Now, at Delhi, they were certainly in dire circumstances. They were short of money and after borrowing from their friends they reached Ahmedabad.
4. Complaining deficiency in service, they filed a complaint before the State Commission both, against the travel agent and the airlines alleging that they were put to great hardship both physical and mental after such a traumatic experience. They stated that though we travelled to Kulu and back but it was a sheer nightmare".
5. State Commission after considering the whole aspect of the matter held that both the travel agents and the airlines were deficient in service. Before the State Commission, the Complainants had evidence to show as to how much expenses they incurred while going to and coming from Kulu. State Commission after examining the whole aspect of the matter came to the conclusion that both the travel agent and the airlines were deficient in service and awarded compensation against them as aforesaid. Both of them were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and costs to the Complainants. As far as the time schedule from Delhi to Kulu is concerned, it is stated by the airlines that flight timings from Delhi to Kulu were changed w.e.f. 15.4.1992 and the change in timings was mailed to all agents including Express Travels. This fact has been denied by the Express Travels who says that no such intimation was received from the Airlines. That being the position, it is difficult to except the argument of Express Travel that complainant should have re-confirmed the tickets at least 24 hrs. before the flight which fact, according to it, was mentioned on the tickets. The fact, however, remains that the flight was to be boarded from Delhi and not from Ahmedabad. There was no notice to the complainant of change in time schedule of the aircraft. Both, the airlines and the travel agent are blaming each other for no fault of the complaints. It was also the stand of the Airlines that the travel agent was merely a ticketing agent and could not issue a confirmed ticket. But by issuing a confirmed ticket, travel agent represented that they had such an authority of the Airlines. We have been shown agreement between the travel agent and the airlines. We do not find any specific clause which limits the powers of the agent in not issuing the confirmed tickets. For the journey back from Kulu to Delhi, Airlines submitted that under the Carriage by Air Act, it could cancel or alternate the commencement of advancement of the flight without assigning any reason. That may be so. But, then, in this case deficiency in service alleged on the ground that no notice of cancellation was given and particularly, when boarding passed had been given, no arrangement was made. Even at the request of the complainants, their tickets were not refunded. When a flight is cancelled etc., it is required that a reasonable notice be given to the passengers. As to what is to be reasonable would depend upon the facts of each case. Cause of cancellation of flight could sometimes be due to had weather and some times it may be technical fault having suddenly occurred at the aircraft.
6. It would, thus, be seen that both ways the Complainants have suffered. It is not difficult to understand how much mental agony and tension that the complainants might have undergone. As a matter of fact, airlines should have made arrangement or at least given held in this regard for the travel by road from Delhi to Kulu and not providing even such a facility is certainly deficiency in service apart from not informing the complainants about the change in time schedule. In our view, the State Commission was right in allowing the complaint and awarding compensation and costs. We therefore, find no error in the impugned order and the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission for us to take a different view. Both these appeals are dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs. 5,000/- in each of the appeals.