1. THESE two appeals are directed against one and the same order dated 23.8.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 516 of 1999. The complaint was filed by the respondent Shri Harpreet Singh and his father S. Updesh Singh against M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd. and Air India Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Both the opposite parties have filed separate appeals. Appeal No. 308 of 2002 has been filed by opposite party No. 1-M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd. whereas Appeal No. 247 of 2002 has been filed by opposite party No. 1 - Air India. The facts giving rise to these two appeals may briefly be mentioned as under.
2. SHRI Harpreet Singh, complainant had purchased an air ticket from the appellant-Air India through its travel agent-M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd., Chandigarh owned by SHRI Kamaljit Singh Cheema, Proprietor. The ticket issued to him bore No. 081-34403:625:559 in respect of flight No. AI 416 which was scheduled for departure on 25.2.1999 at 11.05 and charged Rs. 22,730/- vide receipt dated 23.2.1999. The copy of the receipt has been placed on record as Annexure C-1 and copy of ticket has been placed as Annexure C-2. The ticket had an OK status for journey from Delhi to Sydney via Singapore.
The complainant Shri Harpreet Singh accompanied by his relatives reached Indira Gandhi International Airport at Delhi on 25.2.1999 at 7.00 a.m. and got his ticket checked at the counter of Air India at about 8.40 a.m. when he was told that the ticket was not of OK status. It is alleged that the complainant Shri Harpreet Singh was to report at Sydney University on 1.3.1999 for higher studies. Shri Updesh Singh father of Shri Harpreet Singh contacted the Delhi Office of Air India who checked their computer list and told him that the ticket held by Shri Harpreet Singh did not figure in the computer list. The complainant was asked to wait till 10.30 a.m. but even by then, no arrangement could be made as the flight was fully booked. The complainant could not board the flight aforesaid. The complainants then approached Air India Office at Connaught Place, New Delhi and they were also unable to help and told them that no seat was available in the flights of Air India for the next three days. Thereafter, the complainant hired services of a travel agent and paid him Rs. 3,000/- as fee. The said travel agent was able to persuade the Air India Authorities and the complainant No. 1 was allotted seat in the next Indian Air Lines home flight at 5.40 p.m. from Delhi to Bombay and thereafter in Qantas Airways from Bombay to Sydney. It has been alleged by the complainants that acts of omission and commission of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service due to which the complainants were put to great mental tension and physical harassment as well as financial loss.
The complainant No. 2 then approached opposite parties No. 2-Air India and apprised them that the ticket in question was of OK status but the same was not honoured. He also approached opposite party No. 1-M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd. and apprised him of the factual position but they are alleged to have paid no relief heed. Thereafter, a legal notice was served on opposite party No. 1 but no action was taken by the opposite party No. 1 even on receipt of legal notice. This led to the filing of the complaint. The complainants claimed financial loss of Rs. 10,000/- on account of hiring services of travel agent, taxi charges from Indira Gandhi International Airport to Connaught Place and then to domestic Airport at New Delhi and Rs. 40,000/- for mental torture and physical harassment, agony and discomfort.
3. THE opposite party No. 1 took a plea that the complainant No. 2 had no locus standi to file the complaint. It was, however, not disputed that the complainant purchased the Delhi-Sydney ticket from opposite party No. 1. It was further pleaded that the ticket had been distributed by opposite party No. 1 Air India and was confirmed by the Central Reservation System (SABRE) of opposite party No. 2- Air India and as such the opposite party No. 1 was not concerned with the cancellation of reservation and lapse, if any, is on the part of opposite party No. 2. THE opposite party No. 2 in its reply took a plea that the ticket was issued by IATA agent i.e. opposite party No. 1. THE said reservation was made by the opposite party No. 1 on their computer. It was alleged that the ticket had been issued by Qantas Airways and the complainant was booked first sector on Air India in the domestic flight from Delhi to Bombay. It was further contended that the opposite party No. 1 had not passed on and communicated the ticket number to Air India within the stipulated period. Hence, the seat was cancelled by Air India after expiry of the time limit, for not providing the ticket number. According to opposite party No. 2-Air India, mistake lay with the agent i.e. opposite party No. 1. It was also contended that the complainant had not hired or availed of the services of Air India.
The complainant filed affidavit of Shri Updesh Singh who is also General Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant No. 1-Shri Harpreet Singh and filed the copies of the ticket and receipt etc. On behalf of Air India, Mrs. A. Bhinder, Manager filed her affidavit. Shri Kamaljit Singh, Director of opposite party No. 1 filed his own affidavit. The District Forum held that after issuing the ticket to opposite party No. 1, the Air India-opposite party No. 2 could not escape liability when opposite party No. 1 gave the OK status ticket to the complainant. It was held that it is between the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to apportion the blame between themselves and so far as the complainant is concerned, the deficiency in service has been proved.
4. THE complaint was allowed and the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation plus Rs. 4,000/- as compensation for hiring services of another travel agent at Delhi and for their travel expenses at Delhi. THE total amount of compensation awarded is Rs. 19,000/- plus interest thereon at the rate 9 percent per annum w.e.f. the date of order till payment. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded as costs of litigation.
As mentioned above, both the opposite parties felt aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum and they have filed these two appeals which are being decided by this common order which is being delivered in Appeal No. 247 of 2002, Air India v. Shri Harpreet Singh & 2 Ors.
We have heard Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate appearing for the appellant- Air India; Mr. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Shri Harpreet Singh and Shri Updesh Singh, and Mr. S.C. Khanna, Advocate for respondent No. 3-M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd. We have also carefully perused the impugned order and the record of the case.
5. IT is not disputed that the appellant/opposite party No. 1-M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd. is an IATA agent working for Air India as well. The issuance of the ticket to the complainants for undertaking journey from Delhi to Sydney is not disputed. The dispute relates to the OK status of the ticket. According to the plea taken by M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd.-opposite party No. 1, the ticket had been issued having OK status from the computer which is practically controlled by Air India. The ticket was issued on 23.2.1999 which is the date of issuance of the receipt (Annexure C-1) for payment of Rs. 22,730/-. The journey was to be undertaken on 25.2.1999. The perusal of the ticket (Annexure C-2) would go to show that the ticket had been issued by Air India on Qantas Airways. The journey from Delhi to Singapore was booked on Air India flight No. AI 416 whereas journey from Singapore to Sydney was booked on another flight and the ticket on both the sectors were of OK status. A perusal of the averments made by the opposite party No. 2-Air India would go to show that the agent-opposite party No. 1 failed to give the ticket number within the stipulated time to Air India Office and as such the seat allotted to the complainant Shri Harpreet Singh was cancelled and was allotted to someone else.
6. THE contention of the learned Counsel for M/s. Grand Travel Planners (P.) Ltd. is that the time difference between the date of issuance of the ticket and the journey to be undertaken was of only two days and the computer giving the details was under the complete control of Air India.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the complainant had hired the services of the opposite parties for undertaking journey from Delhi to Sydney where he had to report for higher studies at Sydney University on 1.3.1999. The inter se dispute between the opposite parties will not deprive the complainant from alleging deficiency in service and claim damages by filing the complaint and the District Forum rightly held deficiency in service on their part as despite having an OK status ticket on Air India flight No. AI 416, the respondent-complainant Shri Harpreet Singh could not board the flight and he had to contact the offices of Air India and sought their help in boarding another flight but they did not render any help. It was eventually when the complainant contacted another agent at Delhi and paid to him Rs. 3,000/- as fees that the other travel agent was able to secure a seat for Shri Harpreet Singh on the Air India flight in the domestic sector from Delhi to Bombay and from Bombay on the flight of Qantas Airways to Sydney. There can be no two opinions that the complainants were put to great harassment and inconvenience. The finding of the District Forum cannot be faulted with. The compensation has been rightly assessed and awarded. The mere technicalities pointed out by Air India would not be sufficient to hold that they were justified in refusing to allot a seat on the OK status ticket issued to the complainant.
So far as the locus standi of complainant No. 2 to file the complaint is concerned, the definition of ''consumer'' as contained in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would go to show that even a potential user of the services hired or availed by the consumer are included in the definition of ''consumer'' and both the complainants have a locus standi to file and maintain the complaint case.
7. IN view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the two appeals which are dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 250/- each. Appeal No. 247 of 2002 Vide our detailed order of the even date recorded separately, this appeal along with connected Appeal No. 308 of 2002 have been dismissed with costs which have been quantified at Rs. 250/- each. Appeal No. 308 of 2002 For orders, see the order passed in Appeal No. 247 of 2002 titled ''Air INdia Office v. Shri Harpreet Singh & 2 Ors''. Appeals dismissed.
