Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. Ex.C-1 is booking detail for travel on the record. The ticket was booked for the complainant by her brother for the date of travel 01.12.2015. Ex.C-2 is the payment detail of Rs.47,867/- paid by the brother of the complainant from his own account for booking the air ticket of the complainant at Patiala. The output taken out from the net is Ex.C-3 on the record. Ex.C-4 is the confirmation for booking details by Virgin Atlantic airline OP No.1 for Rs.42959. The grievance of the complainant is that Ops preponed her flight 30.11.2015, whereas scheduled date for the flight was 01.12.2015 and that too without informing her. Legal notice was served upon Ops on the record vide Ex.C-5. Ex.C-6 is the tracking record of the luggage. Ex.C-8 is email addressed to complainant by OP No.2 expressing sorry on its behalf for preponing the date of the flight. Ex.C-9 is email by Via.Com addressed to complainant expressing thanks to her for booking. The grievance of the complainant is that the flight was booked and scheduled for 01.12.2015 and it was preponed for 30.11.2015 by Ops without giving any intimation to her. The flight was booked by her brother through OP No.2 via.com. The agency of OP No.2 was used for booking the ticket by the brother of the complainant on her behalf by making payment at Patiala. Ops also adduced the evidence Ex.OP-A affidavit of Sh.Pavitar Raheja, signatory of company. He stated that complainant booked the tickets of OP No.1 and the contract was between OP No.1 and the complainant not with OP No.2. Ex.OP-B is the affidavit of Vijay Kumar Sales Service Manager of OP no.1. Reply to legal notice is Ex.OP-1 on the record. Ex.OP-4 is certificate issued by Op no.2 to the effect that Vijay Kumar was authorized to sign the affidavit and to make statements on its behalf before the District Forum. We have also perused the other documents placed on the record and the evidence on the file.

8. Complainant has been residing at London and she had to attend the meeting with Supervisor. Her brother made payment for purchase of ticket at Patiala and the flight was scheduled for 01.12.2015 from London to Delhi and return ticket Delhi to London on 07.01.2016. Complainant duly provided her email id and cell number of her brother to OP No.2 for further communications. When she logged for further inquiry about the flight on 30.11.2015, suddenly she found that there was an error in the computer system. She contacted OP No.1 agent, who stated that it was preponed for 30.11.2015 and it came like a bolt from the blue to her. There is nothing on the record to establish that either OP No.1 or OP No.2 informed her about preponing the flight for 30.11.2015 instead of scheduled date on 01.12.2015. The reschedule of the flight was not intimated to complainant by Ops at all. Payment was eventually received by OP No.1 through Op No.2. Op No.2 cannot be also absolved of its liability. As far as the booking agent is concerned, which is via.com. National Commission has held in Chief Commercial Officer, Indian Airlines and Anr. Vs. P.Lalchand and Anr, reported in Vol.II CPJ 61, that a ticket for airlines was purchased for travelling through travel agent by complainant on 17.05.1991- A change in time of departure was effected on 08.05.1991 which became effective from 15.05.1991. All agents were communicated about change in schedule, who were responsible to inform the travelers about the change-Indian Airlines cannot be held responsible for any deficiency in service for not informing the complainant about change in time. We find that there is nothing on the record that OP No.2 did inform OP No.1 about the change of the schedule. Consequently, both the OPs have been rightly held to be liable for deficiency in service to complainant on their part by District Forum. We have not come across any illegality and material infirmity in the order of District Forum under challenge in this appeal. The order of District Forum Patiala is, thus, affirmed in this appeal.