M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The opposite parties 1 to 3 are the appellants in F.A.638/2011, F.A.316/2009 and F.A.132/2009 respectively.2. The parties are referred in this order as arrayed in COP.723/2004.3. Facts leading to this appeal:- The complainants availing the service of the first opposite party-Travel Agent, booked 3 tickets for them, to Australia from Chennai and return also for husband / father, originally, paying a sum of Rs.99,350/-, then paying additional sum of Rs.4900/-. As per the itinerary, the complainants have to travel by Indian Airlines Flight IC 555 from Chennai to Singapore, leaving Chennai at 00.50 hours, then from Singapore by Quantas QF 16 to Melbourne at 9.20 a.m. on 21.12.2002. 4. As scheduled, the complainants came to Chennai International Airport, where they discovered to their surprise, their names were not in the Computer list of the passengers to travel on IC 555 and the seats in Quantas QF16 were still wait listed. The third opposite party informed at 11.50 p.m. that they were 200% booked, no possibility of traveling that night, thereby compelling the complainants, to stand in the street at midnight since they are not conversant with Chennai. On 21.12.2002, the third opposite party got confirmed tickets to fly on 22.12.2007 early morning by IC 555, requesting to contact the first opposite party, for rebooking of seats to fly from Singapore to Melbourne. The complainants were informed that only one seat was available on 22.12.2004, thereby compelling the complainants to wait till 23.12.2002 to get three seats, thereby compelling the complainant to wait 12 hours in Singapore Airport.5. As per the rescheduled programme on 21.12.2004, the complainants reached Singapore though the flight was delayed by 1 hour 40 minutes and the complainants have to spent 13 hours at the Airport lounge itself, causing further inconvenience, since they have to take the route via Sydney, missing the connecting flight from Sydney also. Because of the delayed reaching of the complainants, their relatives at Australia were put to anxiety and the complainants also suffered a lot for unnecessary travel, expenses for food, including phone calls, suffering mental agony, for which, in all, the complainants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,06,697/-. Thus, attributing negligence, claiming the amount, a consumer complaint was filed.6. The first opposite party remained exparte.7. The second opposite party resisted the case contending that there was no deficiency of service, since their tickets were confirmed in QF 16/21 December Singapore/Melbourne. They were never on "Wait List" basis as incorrectly alleged by the complainants. If at all for not traveling in IC Indian Airlines, the third opposite party has to explain or the first opposite party has to explain. On reaching Singapore, the complainants have accepted for booking on a flight via Sydney, although this would entail a 12 hours wait in Singapore on 22.12.2002. On account of the complainants, missing the confirmed booked of Qantas on 21.12.2002 , consequential delay followed, which cannot be attributed to this opposite party, and therefore, there is no question of deficiency or negligent act as the case may be, warranting to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainants. Hence, it is prayed, the complaint may be dismissed as far as the second opposite party is concerned.8. The third opposite party admitting the booking of tickets of the complainants, through the first opposite party, resisted the case on the following grounds. 9. The booking was made by the first opposite party-Travel Agent and the season being "peak season", the third opposite party had sent a message to the first opposite party, to reconfirm the booking to avoid cancellation on 17.12.2002 and 19.12.2002. Since no reply was received from the first opposite party, the third opposite party cancelled the reservations on 20.12.2002 at 11.30 hours, informing the first opposite party also, as no reconfirmation. The cancellation has been done as per the International Conventions, cannot be faulted.10. The question of over booking is hardly relevant because of the complainants travel agent were asked more than once to confirm the booking. Since there was no reply, the booking was cancelled. Therefore, when the complainants reported on 21.12.2002, they were informed that their tickets were cancelled, for not reconfirming, further informing, it is not possible for accommodation also immediately. If at all for the default committed by the first opposite party, they alone should held responsible and this opposite party is not concerned about the delay at Singapore or waiting as the case may be, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.11. The District Forum based upon the pleadings, supported by affidavits and considering the materials also came to the conclusion that the third opposite party has no right to cancel the confirmed tickets, and having did so, they have committed deficiency in service. It has further held that because of the cancellation and rescheduling, the complainants were made to wait 12 hours at Singapore Airport, that should be construed as deficiency in service. Thus concluding, the District Forum has directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to each of the complainants, as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- to each of the complainants, as costs, thus giving grievance to all the opposite parties, challenging the said order individually, including by the first opposite party, who has not filed any Written Version or contested the case.12. The complainants in order to go to Australia, have booked three tickets in second and third opposite parties? Airlines, through the travel agent-first opposite party. As per the itinerary and as per the confirmed tickets, they have to travel by IA Flight IC 555 from Chennai to Singapore, at 00.50 hours, then by Quantas QF16 to Melbourne, leaving Singapore at 9.20 a.m. on 21.12.2002 as seen from the documents. The complainants were owning holiday, possessing ?OK? tickets that are confirmed tickets, not challenged, though the third opposite party would contend that the tickets should have been reconfirmed, which we will discuss infra.13. As per the scheduled programme, when the complainants have reached the Chennai International Airport on 21.12.2002, they were informed by the third opposite party, that their tickets were cancelled and therefore, they cannot travel on 21.12.2002, as scheduled in view of the over booking, further. Because of the cancellation, they were unable to reach Singapore and catch the flight from Singapore to Melbourne also, resulting problem. Thereafter, the program was rescheduled and the third opposite party had issued confirmed tickets for the travel on 22.12.2002 at 00.50 hours, thereby delaying a day. Because of the rescheduled, the second opposite party being not informed in advance, they were unable to accommodate three tickets, in the earliest flight and they were able to provide three tickets in the flight QF 006 on 22.12.2002 via Sydney. Because of the non-availability of the flight forthwith, with sufficient seats, the complainants have to wait at Singapore Airport for 12 hours or so, thereby undoubtedly, they have suffered since the Airlines have also not made any arrangement, for stay or food as the case may be. Thus alleging negligence and deficiency as said above, a consume complaint was filed, ending with partial success, which is impugned, not questioned by complainant.14. The first opposite party has not filed any Written Version and in fact the third opposite party accuses the first opposite party, for the cancellation of the confirmed tickets. As far as the complainants are concerned, as rightly recorded by the District Forum, since they were holding ?OK? tickets, they should have been accommodate in the flight on 21.12.2002 at 00.50 hours flight. Admittedly, they have not been provided the seats, in the said flight. This should be prima facie construed as deficiency in service. Atleast, the third opposite party while canceling the ?OK? tickets, should have informed the complainants, since ?OK? tickets were sought to be cancelled. Whatever may be the understanding or agreement between the Agent and the Airlines, when the passengers are holding valid tickets, that should be honoured, and if there is any internal dispute between Airlines and the Agent, they have to workout their remedy separately. Thus, looking the case from this angle, we are of the considered opinion that by canceling the confirmed tickets, and not informing the passengers, the third opposite party had committed negligence, for which, they should be held responsible since it is a deficiency in service, since admittedly the passengers were put to much inconvenience, sufferings, by postponement of the travel and consequential delay at Singapore in catching the flight to Australia.15. The learned counsel for the third opposite party would contend, that as per the Circular issued by them to the Agent, the cancellation will not only adjust inventory in Host System, but it will also generate a cancellation message to the originator, about the cancellation of IC Segment and therefore, the Agents should have informed the ticket holder and their failure cannot be taken as deficiency of service, on the part of the Airlines. As said above, it is an internal arrangement between the Agent and the Airlines and no records is produced before the District Forum, about the message given to the Agent for reconfirmation or their failure etc., though the typeset was given before us, which cannot be taken as evidence. Assuming the third opposite party had informed the Agent, the failure on the part of the Agent should not visit any penalty upon the complainants and the third opposite party should have informed the cancellation to the ticket holders, through some means or should have confirmed with Agent, which they failed, which should be construed as deficiency. As we have already adverted to above, it is an internal matter between the agent and the airlines and therefore, we are unable to accept the case of the cancellation, by the third opposite party for not reconfirming the tickets by the Agent, which is not the condition attached to the original ticket, known to the complainants/ticket holders. Therefore, the first and third opposite parties should be held responsible, for not informing the cancellation of the tickets to the complainants, thereby compelling them to come to the Airport, then returning, spending money, then seeking for rescheduling the travel, causing mental agony. The District Forum considering these facts, in our opinion has rightly held, the first and third opposite parties are responsible for the deficiency.16. As far as the second opposite party is concerned, we are unable to confirm the order of the District Forum, since as rightly submitted on behalf of the second opposite party, there was no deficiency on their part. As submitted in the Written Version itself, the tickets of the complainants were confirmed tickets, from Singapore to Melbourne and that service was not able to be availed by the complainants because of the deficiency committed by the first and third opposite parties, for which, the second opposite party cannot be held responsible. On 22.12.2002, when the complainants reached Singapore as per the rescheduled programme, the second opposite party was unable to accommodate three and on their request, which is not challenged as pleaded in the Written Version and they were given three tickets via Sydney and to catch that flight as per the scheduled time, they have to wait at Singapore Airport, which cannot be the deficiency said to have been committed by the second opposite party. Due to unavoidable reasons, the second opposite party was unable to accommodate the complainants, in the earliest flight that had happened because of the non-arrival of the complainants in time at Singapore, for that, we are not willing to fix deficiency, upon the second opposite party, making them liable to pay compensation, and they should be relieved from the clutches of alleged deficiency. Therefore, the finding of the District Forum, against the second opposite party and granting compensation as far as the second opposite party is concerned, liable to be set aside, since erroneous, not based on acceptable materials. For the above said reasons, the appeal filed by the second opposite party is liable to be allowed, and the appeals filed by the first and third opposite parties are liable to be dismissed.F.A.638/2011 & F.A.132/2009 17. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum as far as the first and third opposite parties are concerned, modifying the costs, ordering one cost for all complainants, setting aside the order of the District Forum to pay the costs, for each complainant separately since one complaint alone has been filed, incurring one costs. No order as to costs in these two appeals.F.A.316/2009 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum as far as this appellant/second opposite party is concerned is set aside and the complaint against the second opposite party is dismissed. No order as to costs in this appeal.;