Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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 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.