- (1.) THIS appeal arises from order dated 27th January, 2003 rendered by the learned Ahmedabad City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 258/1996. Impugned order reads as under: "Both the opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 35,000/ - for the tickets of Cathey Pacific as well as Damania Airways with 12% interest thereon from the date of journey 24.7.1995 till payment to the complainant. The opponents jointly and severally responsible for causing loss physically, mentally and financially so the opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay lump sum Rs. 5,000/ - for compensation of mental agony and harassment and cost of this litigation to the complainant. The opponents are jointly and severally ordered to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
(2.) WE have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. We have gone through the impugned order.
(3.) IT was the complainant s case before the learned Forum that the complainant Mr. Alpesh Chandrakant Dagli dealing in advertising business had passport in question issued on 18th October, 1993, but there was a mistake in not mentioning expiry date thereof in the passport with the result that the complainants had to return from Bangkok as the authorities there did not permit them to move in Bangkok on account of the aforesaid error of omission in the passport. Thus the complainants had to spend for the tickets from India to Bangkok and immediately back from Bangkok to India in the month of July, 1995. Notice correspondence ensued between the parties. Complainant alleged that there was not only error of omission on the part of the Passport Authority but the second opponent Senior Inspector of Police, Airport Branch dealing with immigration failed to notice the error and permitted the complainant and his wife to fly to Bangkok. The complainant, therefore, approached the learned Forum with prayer for compensation. The first opponent Regional Passport Office, Ahmedabad resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that the complaint could not be entertained in law, that there was no deficiency in service on the part of any of the officials of the first opponent, that there was a minor technical mistake of not entering date of expiry in the passport, that it transpired that when the officer checked the complainant s papers at Bombay at the relevant point of time he noticed the mistake and that on the basis of the passport as it stood Thai Mission had issued the Visa in favour of the complainants and that, therefore, the Bombay Airport Authorities allowed the complainants to proceed ahead with the journey. The Immigration Authorities at Bangkok, however, refused entry at the time when the complainants entered Bangkok by Cathey Pacific Airlines Flight No. CX 750. Accordingly the first opponents error of omission was a bona fide mistake and could not amount to deficiency in service.;