State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Globe Forex & Travels Limited vs Lt. Col. (Retd.) Nilmani Pal & Others on 7 August, 2012
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/255/2011 DATE OF FILING : 01.06.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 07.08.2012 APPELLANT GLOBE FOREX & TRAVELS LIMITED Having its office at 11, Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700 071. RESPONDENTAS 1. LT. COL. (RETD) NILMANI PAL S/o Late Haripada Pal 2. SMT. MIRA PAL Wife of LT. COL (RETD) NILMANI PAL Both the above residing at Flat No. A-1, 301, Mangalam Park, 14, Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani, Behala, Kolkata-700 034, P.S. Behala. 3. BRITISH Airways having its office at 16, Camac Street, P.S. Camac Street Kolkata-700 016. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE APPELLANT : Ms. Maya Roy, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Mr. Asutosh Das, Ld. Advocate Mr. Chandranath Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate Ms. Rekha Ghosh, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order No. 30 dt. 22.3.11 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 383/2007 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint on contest with cost against the OP No. 1, i.e. Globe Forex & Travels Limited, and without cost against the OP No. 2, i.e. British Airways, thereby directing the OP No. 1 to pay Rs. 97,052/- only in Indian currency together with compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of the order.
The case of the complainants/Respondents before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainants for the purpose of travelling from Kolkata to London and London to Leeds and again from Manchester to Montreal and back to Kolkata purchased through OP No. 1 Air Tickets of OP No. 2 and in the process, paid Rs. 1,88,402/- to OP No. 1. According to the Complainants, OP No. 1 supplied e-tickets issued by OP No. 2 for travelling from Kolkata to London on 5.4.06 and for the purpose of availing the journey from Manchester to Montreal on 24.5.06 and for return journey, i.e. from Montreal to Manchester, on 4.6.06 and London to Kolkata on 23.9.06. It was the further case of the complainant that due to some urgent necessity the complainants had to prepone their journey from Manchester to Montreal on 3.5.06 instead of 24.5.06 and accordingly, the complainants requested the OP no. 1, to which the OP No. 1 agreed to accommodate the complainants and requested the complainants to purchase e-tickets accordingly and the complainants after purchasing the e-tickets were about to board the flight on 3.5.06, but was denied from availing such flight at the instance of the OP No. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops the petition of complaint was filed for proper redressal.
The OP No. 1 contested the case by filing a written version thereby denying all the material averments mentioned in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that there was no privity of contract in between the complainants and the OP No. 1.
It is the OP No. 2 who issues the tickets for prospective customers and that by way of courtesy the OP No. 1 advised the complainants to avail of preponed flight after purchasing the e-tickets, but the ultimate decision in this regard solely rests upon the OP No. 2, British Airways. It is the further plea adopted by the OP No. 1 to the effect that in extreme cases like that of death and serious illness, preponement is available. The present case having not been under special categories the complainants were not entitled to have benefits of preponement as prayed for and the petition of complaint having been filed on all false and fictitious grounds the same was liable to be dismissed.
The OP No. 2, British Airways, contested the case thereby denying all the material averments made in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that only in case of serious illness and death the preponement can be availed of. The present case being not under such categories the complainants were not entitled to any relief whatsoever, nor there was any assurance or guarantee in the tickets already sold to the complainants as regards change of dates and in the absence of any deficiency in service at the instance of the OP No. 2, British Airways, the case was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that there was no denial of the fact that the complainant initially purchased the tickets for the journeys by air and paid the fares accordingly. Though the Ops were trying to shake off their responsibilities for the admitted harassment meted out to the complainants, there was no denial of the fact that the complainants in spite of purchase of e-tickets for the preponement date were denied availing of the flight on the preponed date, which tantamounts to deficiency in service and as the payment was made to the OP No. 1 only, it is the OP No. 1 who is responsible to compensate and return the fare of the tickets to the complainants and accordingly, disposed of the petition of complaint as mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the OP No. 1 that the OP No. 1 being an agent of the OP No. 2, British Airways, question of holding the OP No. 1/Appellant to be solely responsible for the inconvenience, if any, caused to the complainants. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP No. 1, Ld. District Forum having utterly failed to appreciate this aspect of the case has passed the impugned order, which is not at all sustainable under the law. While elaborating on this point the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has urged before us that when admittedly it is for the courtesy sake the OP No. 1 requested the complainant to avail of e-tickets for the preponement of date of journey, it was incumbent upon the complainant to verify whether such preponement was permissible or not, when in the tickets already sold to the complainants indicated that such preponement was not permissible. The complainants having tried to prepone the date of flight though it was not permissible under the rules, question of designating the OP No. 1/Appellant, who is merely an agent of the Airways, to be deficient in service at the instance of the Ld. District Forum is certainly illegal, unjust and improper and on this score alone the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainants have come forward with a case to the effect that initially the complainants purchased air tickets issued by OP No. 2, British Airways, through its agent, the OP No. 1, but as things happened, due to urgency, the complainants had to prepone their journey and instead of 24.5.06 they intended to avail of the flight from Manchester to Montreal on 3.5.06.
But, though as advised by the OP No. 1 the complainants purchased e-tickets for valuable consideration thereby preponing the date, the complainants were denied of availing of the flight on 3.5.06. Not only that, though there was no specific instruction to cancel the ticket for the journey on 24.5.06, the same was cancelled thereby putting the complainants in great jeopardy and harassment, which, according to the complainants, tantamounted to deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops and hence, the petition of complaint. While the OP No. 1 tried to exonerate itself from the accusation levelled against it by the complainants thereby taking a plea to the effect that the OP No. 1 being a mere agent of the OP No. 2, British Airways, had no financial liability to compensate the complainant for any inconvenience caused to the complainants in the matter of availing of flights by way of preponement of date, which, according to the OP No. 1, solely rests upon the OP No. 2, British Airways.
The OP No. 2, on the other hand, has tried to shift its responsibility by taking up a plea to the effect that as only on the ground of serious illness and death the prayer for preponement can be considered and when admittedly the prayer for preponement of the date of booking of tickets does not fall under such category, question of permitting the complainants to prepone the date of the flight does not arise at all. The complainants being fully aware of such terms and conditions are precluded from taking up a plea to the effect that by not allowing the complainant to avail of the flight on the preponed date has caused harassment and mental agony to the complainants due to deficiency in service at the instance of the OP No. 2 and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the case.
We have carefully gone through the impugned judgement and find that the Ld. District Forum has really taken great pains in traversing the cases of respective parties and nitty-gritty of the cases of respective parties and in doing so, has arrived at a just and proper decision. Considering the manner in which the Ld. District Forum traversed the cases of respective parties we are satisfied that the observation made by the Ld. District Forum as already mentioned above, appears to be just and proper. When admittedly the complainants after intimation to the OP No. 1 have purchased the e-tickets for the proposed preponed date and when, more so, admittedly the e-tickets were issued by the OP No. 2, question of denying the complainants to avail of the flight on the preponed date does not arise at all. In this regard, we are of the considered opinion that the OP No. 2 is equally responsible for the harassment and mental agony meted out to the complainants for not permitting them to avail of the flight on the preponed date and pecuniary liability, which was imposed upon the OP No. 1 by the Ld. District Forum, should jointly and severally be borne by the OP Nos. 1 and 2. Having considered the present Appeal in the light of above discussions we modify the impugned judgement to the effect that the OP No. 2 is also equally responsible for the harassment caused to the complainant as observed by the Ld. District Forum and it should bear the pecuniary liability so imposed by the Ld. District Forum jointly and severally.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal is disposed of with the modification to the effect that the petition of complaint stands allowed on contest with cost. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 97,052/- (Rupees ninety seven thousand fifty two only) along with compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainants within 45 (forty five) days from the date hereof, failing which the amounts will carry interest @ 8% per annum till realization in full.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT