NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
(From the
order dated 1.7.2001 in Appeal No.477/1997
of the State Commission, Gujarat)
Syndicate
Tours & Travels
Petitioner
Vs.
Consumer
Education & Research Society
Respondents
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P.
WADHWA,
PRESIDENT
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.
J
(D.P. WADHWA)
PRESIDENT
.
(B.K. TAIMNI)
MEMBER
.J
(K.S. GUPTA)
MEMBER