DHARNI DHAR Vs. AIR MAURITIUS
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) COMPLAINANT who is a retired Commissioner of Income Tax was about 62 years when he filed this complaint. He is now 75 years old. The procrastinated proceedings are result of highly inadequate infrastructure, inadequate administrative component and other deficiencies on the part of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Complainant invited by the General Secretary of the National Organising Committee, Mauritius to participate as a delegate in the 6th Internal Ramayana Conference to be held in Mauritius from 5th to 9th August, 1990. During his onward and return journey he experienced lot of harassment and inconvenience at the hands of the OPs and through this complaint has sought following claims : (a) For the insult etc. on outward journey Rs. 50,000 (b) For insult etc. at Mauritius airport on 9th August, 1990; physical and financial losses owing to forced halt in Mauritius; injury to his religious feelings etc. Rs. 5,00,000
(2.) ALLEGATIONS emanating from the complaint lie in a moderate compass and are like this. OP No. 1 Air Mauritius is the Airlines, which has been projected as the main culprit. OP No. 2 Air India was the General Sales Agent of OP No. 1. OP No. 3 Dex Travel Pvt. Ltd. (since deleted from the array of parties at the instance of the complainant) was the travel agent who the complainant along with 15 other similar delegates approached to book their journeys from Delhi to Mauritius and back via Bombay, which was the shortest route available, in a group. Said opposite party No. 3 got all the 16 tickets of the group issued by Air India (OP No. 2) for OP No. 1 Air Mauritius. In order to encourage sales of tickets, the IATA Regulations provide that for group travels 16 tickets will be issued for the cost of 15 tickets. Since no rebate can be shown on individual tickets, the practice was that the full fare is shown on 15 tickets and the 16th ticket is marked "Free". Incidentally complainant was holding the 16th ticket (Annexure - IV). As per travel plans the group was to travel from Delhi to Bombay by Air India and from Bombay to Mauritius by Air Mauritius. Similarly on return they were to fly by Air Mauritius from Mauritius to Bombay and thereafter by Air India from Bombay to Delhi. He had problems with Air Mauritius both on outward journey and on return as detailed below.
(3.) AN open ticket (Annexure -IV) was issued by OP No. 2 in the name of the complainant on 31.7.1990 and handed over to travel agent OP No. 3 for confirming the reservations as per travel plans.
On the outward journey OP No. 3 had confirmed the reservation for the complainant by Air Mauritius Flight No. MK 745 leaving Bombay for Mauritius in the night between 2nd and 3rd August, 1990 and accordingly he called at the Air Mauritius counter at the Bombay Airport when the bookings for that flight were opened. Mr. Gajadhar of Air Mauritius, who was supervising the bookings for this Flight No. MK 745 told him that his name did not find place in the list of confirmed bookings received from OP No. 3 and despite an OK ticket he could not be given seat on that flight. The plea of the complainant and other members of the group that they must all travel together cut no ice with Mr. Gajadhar who was firm on his stand that the complainant would not be accommodated in that flight. The next flight to Mauritius was after a few days and since the programmes for the Conference were starting from 3.8.1990 missing this flight meant missing the Conference.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.