Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.                 After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

6.                 Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                 We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully.

8.                 The contention of the learned counsel for the complainants/appellants is that the learned District Forum did not appreciate the problem in the case and had justified not only the payment of $516 at Calgary (Canada) vide Annexure-5, but also the recovery of another sum of 200 Euros by OP No.2 at Frankfurt. It is not disputed that the complainant got the flight preponed . He does not object to the payment of $516 for this purpose which was recovered by OP No.3, who has rightly been given up, as no relief has been claimed against it. After receipt of $516 the OP No.2 issued fresh ticket Annexure C-5 with the changed dates. On the basis of this ticket the complainant performed first leg of journey from Calgary to Frankfurt. The question involved is whether OP No.2 who after receiving $516 through its agent OP No.3 at Calgary had already issued the ticket Annexure C-5 could refuse the boarding pass to the complainant at Frankfurt from where the second leg of journey was to start. We are of the opinion that the OP No.2 illegally demanded Euro 200 at Frankfurt and harassed him for its non payment and delayed his departure unnecessarily. Ultimately he had to pay Euro 200 and only thereafter the OP No.2 issued boarding pass to him and he was allowed to board the plane. The learned District Forum has no where analyzed this fact as to whether the OP No.2 could charge twice for the preponement of the ticket especially when the same had already been allowed vide Anenxure C-5. Our answer to this question is in negative. Whatever payment was required for the change of the date the complainant had already paid vide Annexure C-5. He was not liable to pay anything extra for the return journey from Frankfurt to New Delhi. So charging of Euro 200 at Frankfurt was an unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs.