NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
(From the order dated 1.7.2001 in Appeal No.477/1997
of the State Commission, Gujarat)
Syndicate Tours & Travels Petitioner
Consumer Education & Research Society Respondents
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,
MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER.
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, MEMBER
Tours & Travels travel agent gave confirmed ticket for travel from Mumbai to New York by Air India flight ticket not found to be confirmed by the Airlines complaint for deficiency in service on the part of the travel agent allowed.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pravin K. Parekh, Advocate
O R D E R
DATED THE 1ST AUGUST, 2003
JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT).
It is the travel agent who is petitioner before us and was the opposite party before the District Forum in the complaint filed by the respondents. 2nd respondent Ruchira M. Vasavada, a resident of Ahmedabad, was to go to New York by Air India flight and petitioner gave her a ticket as confirmed for her travel to New York from Bombay. When Ruchira reached the airport at Bombay it was found that the ticket was not confirmed. Due to deficiency in service on the part of the complainant properly informing the airlines, Ruchira got stranded. She, therefore, filed a complaint together with Consumer Education & Research society, an NGO, against the petitioner. District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded Rs.15,000/- as compensation to Ruchira with interest @ 18% from the date of the complaint to the payment and Rs.1,000/- as taxi fare & other charges and Rs.1,000/- as cost was also awarded to the Consumer Education & Research Society.
Against the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed. However, State Commission reduced the rate of interest from 18% to 10%.
Still feeling aggrieved, petitioner has come before us. We do not find it is a fit case before us to exercise our jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is a blatant deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. Rather we feel that compensation awarded was on lower side considering the sufferings Ruchira would have gone into. However, complainant has come before us. We see no merit in this petitioner. It is dismissed.