1. THIS revision by the complainant is directed against the order dated 16.5.2006 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai disposing of appeal against the order dated 12.3.2001 of a District Forum with direction to the respondents/opposite parties to refund the fare from Kuala-Lumpur to Chennai to the petitioner. Petitioner was, however, ordered to pay Rs. 4,000 as cost in the complaint and another sum of Rs. 4,000 towards cost in the appeal to the respondents. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to the respondents to pay amount of Rs. 25,000 as compensation for mental agony, Rs. 25,000 towards air fare and other expenses and Rs. 4,000 as cost to the petitioner.
2. FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner who has been working as Reader in the Department of Urology Unit-II, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore wanted to attend the World Congress of Endourology from 11.11.1996 to 14.11.1996 at Melbourne. He also wanted to visit for a week the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia on the invitation from Dr. Paddy Dewan, Paediatric Urologist in that hospital. He was invited to attend 6th Urological Conference at Malacca in Malaysia from 22.11.1996 to 24.11.1996. So, the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 for booking tickets and obtaining visas. He handed over his passport and letters of invitation as demanded by respondent No. 1. In mid October 1996, the opposite party No. 1 got a visa for the petitioner for visiting Australia. He was informed that the visa to visit Malaysia would be processed only after the return flight ticket from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras was confirmed. Amount of Rs. 38,045 was paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 under Invoice No. 2056 dated 2.11.1996. Respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to get the visa from Malaysian Consulate at Madras. Respondent No. 1 who was in constant touch with petitioner, informed the petitioner that he had got confirmation for return ticket for 29.11.1996 and he was trying to get that date changed to 26.11.1996 as desired by the petitioner. On 6.11.1996, the respondent No. 2 gave to the petitioner ticket No. 081 4495162238 for the route Madras - Singapore - Melbourne - Adelaide - Sydney -Kuala Lumpur - Madras and confirmed the status of booking as O.K. from Air India for 29.11.1996. Petitioner was told by respondent No. 2 that he was wait listed for 26.11.1996 on Air India from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras. After reaching Melbourne, the petitioner contacted the officers of Quantas Airways Limited from whom he came to know that he had neither confirmed reservation for 29.11.1996 nor was he wait listed for 26.11.1996. He was advised by Ms. Aylic, Quantas Desk 153 to contact Quantas Airways Office at Adelaide where he was informed that the yellow sticker on his ticket was fraud and had no authorization from Air India. Petitioner was also informed by Quantas Airways that no seat was available in the flight from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras till 3rd week of December 1996 and only option was to update the ticket to club class so that the petitioner could fly out of Kuala-Lumpur on 26.11.1996. Petitioner alleged that he had not the sufficient foreign currency to purchase ticket for club class. With the help of a doctor friend, the petitioner by spending 800 Malasian Dollars got a ticket for economy class from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras. Petitioner thereafter got issued a notice dated 11.3.1997 through his Advocate on respondent No. 1 and Air India to which a reply through Counsel containing false averments was sent on 6.5.1997 by respondent No. 1. In the reply dated 17.3.1997, Air India confirmed that there was no reservation for travel from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras either for 26.11.1996 or 29.11.1996. Petitioner stated that he suffered mental agony as he did not have much foreign currency in foreign country. He was disappointed as he did not attend the conference(s) for which he undertook the journey. Direction was sought to be passed against both the respondents to pay Rs. 2 lakh jointly and severally as compensation for having prevented him from taking part in the conference(s) and to have his knowledge enriched, pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation towards mental agony and pay Rs. 50,000 towards return air freight and other expenses incurred by the petitioner.
3. BOTH the respondents contested the complaint by filing a joint written version. It was admitted that the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 for booking air ticket to Australia for the purpose of attending a conference there. He, however, did not mention about any conference to be attended at Malaysia. It was denied that the petitioner gave letters of invitation to attend conference as demanded by respondent No. 1 as alleged. It was stated that the petitioner asked respondent No. 1 that his return journey from Australia may be routed through Kuala-Lumpur as he was to visit his friend there. Respondent No. 1 obtained visa for the petitioner for visiting Australia. Visa for Malaysia was arranged by the petitioner himself. It was denied that the respondents informed the petitioner that visa to Malaysia would be processed only after the return flight ticket from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras was confirmed. Petitioner insisted that return ticket from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras be booked for 26.11.1996, even though he was informed that no ticket was available for that date. Upon petitioner''s insistence, ticket was booked for 29.11.1996 which was wait listed as on 30.10.1996. It was denied that petitioner was in constant touch with respondent No. 2 to know the progress made in the booking of air tickets. Respondent No. 2 is an employee of respondent No. 1. It was denied that ticket was handed over to the petitioner on 6.11.1996. It was further denied that after reaching Melbourne, the petitioner contacted the officers of Quantas Airways Limited and through whom he came to know that he had neither confirmed reservation for 29.11.1996 nor was he wait listed for 26.11.1996. Respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner at the time of handing over the ticket that return journey had to be re-confirmed on reaching Australia since Quantas Airways Limited had arrangements with Air India for part of the return journey. It was denied that petitioner was told by Ms. Aylic at Quantas Desk 153 to contact Quantas Airways office at Adelaide and there it was told that the yellow sticker on his ticket was a fraud and respondents had no authorization from Air India to issue such a sticker. It was further denied that petitioner did not have sufficient foreign currency to purchase a ticket for club class and he had to fly upto Madras from Kuala-Lumpur in economy class by purchasing ticket with the help of a doctor friend. Complaint was stated to be bad for non-joinder of Quantas Airways. Liability to pay the amount claimed was emphatically denied.
4. WE heard Mr. S.K. Sharma for the petitioner. Despite service of notices, no one was present on behalf of the respondents.
5. CONTROVERSY in this revision mainly centers around the deficiency in service/unfair trade practice in regard to return ticket Ex. A-10 from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras. As may be seen from the impugned order, this ticket contained two sets of coupons. First coupon covered the air journey from Madras to Singapore-Melbourne - Adelaide - Sydney. Second coupon covered the journey from Sydney to Kuala Lumpur- Chennai. The dates given are Chennai 8.11.1996, Singapore 8.11.1996, Melbourne 16.11.1996, Adelaid 22.11.1996, Sydney 28.11.1996 and Kuala Lumpur 29.11.1996. On the yellow sticker affixed to coupon No. 2 the issuing office was given as MAAQF, Carrier Air India Flight No. 489, Class V, Date 29th November and the status O.K. It was also printed on the yellow sticker that it was not for use by travel agents. Petitioner alleges that on reaching Melbourne, he contacted the officers of Quantas Airways Limited from whom he came to know that he had neither confirmed reservation for 29.11.1996 nor was he wait listed for 26.11.1996. Petitioner further alleges that he was advised by Ms. Aylic at Quantas Desk 153 to visit Quantas Airway office at Adelaide; on contacting that office it was confirmed that the yellow sticker on this ticket was a fraud and had no authorization from Air India; no vacancy in the flight from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras was available till 3rd week of December and the only option available was to update the ticket to club class to fly out of Kuala-Lumpur on 26.11.1996. Allegations to the above effect made by the petitioner in the complaint have been denied by the respondents in their joint written version. Ex. A-9 is the letter dated 17.3.1997 received by the Counsel of the petitioner from the Customer Relation Manager, Tamil Nadu, Air India with reference to his letter dated 1.3.1997 regarding the travel of the petitioner. In this letter, it is mentioned that the petitioner did not hold any reservation for travel from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras in Air India flight either on 26.11.1996 or 29.11.1996. This letter, thus, supports the said stand taken by the petitioner in the complaint. To be only noted that in support of the complaint, the petitioner had filed his affidavit. Considering the contents of yellow sticker affixed to coupon No. 2 of the ticket given by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner communication Ex. A-9 dated 17.3.1997, and the affidavit filed in support of complaint, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that petitioner was held out assurance by the respondents of his having confirmed reservation from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras for 29.11.1996 which turned out to be untrue. Respondents allege of the petitioner insisting for change of the booking from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras for 26.11.1996 in the written version. In this backdrop, there is sufficient reason to believe the petitioner that he was misrepresented by respondent No. 2 of his name being wait listed for 26.11.1996 which fact is belied by the said letter, Ex. A-9. Petitioner being a person not connected with travel agency business could not have known that the yellow sticker affixed to coupon No. 2 was not for use by travel agents and it was a fake one, as told by the officers of Quantas Airways. Yellow sticker was used to mislead the petitioner of his having confirmed reservation from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras for 29.11.1996. The State Commission has completely lost sight of the said vital evidence/circumstances which has resulted into miscarriage of justice while deciding the appeal. State Commission had been swayed by the circumstances that the petitioner got authorized invitation from Malaysia to attend Urological Association from 22nd to 24th November, 1996 on 4.11.1996 and Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore had not accorded approval to attend that conference and bear the air fare thereof. It had also taken note of para No. 13 of the complaint wherein the petitioner alleged that he did not attend the two conferences. Allegation made in this para No. 13 was necessary to be examined for the claim of Rs. 2 lakh as compensation for having been prevented from taking part in the conference(s) and having his knowledge enriched. There is sufficient material on record to suggest that petitioner did attend the two conferences and, therefore, he is not entitled to the compensation as claimed. However, claim made for Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony still remained to be decided. He also claimed Rs. 50,000 towards return air freight and the other expenses incurred. In view of aforesaid discussion holding the respondents to be guilty of unfair trade practice/deficiency in service, the petitioner is certainly entitled to compensation under the said head. The District Forum awarded Rs. 25,000 as compensation on that count. In the facts and circumstances of case, the amount awarded by the Forum is quite reasonable. State Commission has ordered refund of the fare from Kuala-Lumpur to Madras. In our view, there was hardly any occasion for the State Commission to have imposed cost of Rs. 4,000 in the complaint and again cost of Rs. 4,000 in appeal on the petitioner and to have passed harsh remarks against him which were not needed for deciding the appeal in the impugned order.
6. ACCORDINGLY, revision petition is partly allowed, and part of the order dated 16.5.2006 directing payment of costs is set aside. The Respondents are ordered to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the petitioner towards mental agony. No order as to cost. Revision Petition partly allowed.
