2.2. However, for his return journey on 29.08.2017 the complainant reached at airport Taiyuan but the airport administration refused boarding pass for want of confirmed ticket in his name, whereas, the complainant had purchased confirmed tickets, the complainant tried his best to convince the airport authority and also to OP1 but no result. The complainant had no option but to purchase a fresh ticket from Taiyuan to Gaungzhou vis-à-vis he had no money and with great difficulties he could arrange the amounts of ticket for Chinese currency 1750 which is equivalent to INR20,000/- . The complainant had faced mental tension, agony and also lost his reputation in the eyes of the persons presence in the airport authority Taiyaun besides using his valuable time. The OP1 had charged professional fee in preparing the confirmed ticket, therefore, it is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 4,95,000/-, besides other relief being claimed.
2.3 The complaint is accompanied with copy of confirmed air ticket booking, payment receipt, information of non-confirmed ticket of airport, copy of fresh ticket, correspondence exchanged, copy of passport and copy of Visa.
3.1 (Case of OP1)-The OP1 filed its detailed written statement, which is narrative, argumentative with citation of case law and reply on facts. As per e-mail reply dated 13.07.2018 of OP2 airlines, the name of passenger mentioned on the passport is Mohd. Irfan but the tickets were issued in the name of Irfan Mohd. Because of this reason he was not allowed to board and declared no show from Taiyun to Gaungzhou. As per passport of complainant, there is no sir-name mentioned but only first name as Mohd. Irfan but while making online booking, the complainant split his name and inserted Irfan in the sir-name and Mohd in the first column; the ticket was auto issued from online portal as per the booking created by the complainant. It is complainant’s own omission or acts due to which the information was furnished, there is no fault of OP1. The complainant failed to fill the information properly or correctly as per emigration and passport rules, there was mismatched of name of complainant in the tickets and passport and that is why he was not allowed to board Taiyuan to Gaungzhou.
Thus, there is mistake committed by the complainant in filling wrong details, therefore, complaint is not maintainable and he is not entitled for any claim. The aggrieved party is required to establish the damages suffered and the Forum must not assess the same randomly or without any basis, complainant places reliance upon volume-III 2004 SLT 161. Further, no compensation would be payable for mental pain/torture/harassment unless so provided under the contract, there is no such contract.
3.2. Moreover, the complainant is not a consumer and issues cannot be decided without elaborate evidence and cross examination, which cannot be by the Consumer Forum and it can be by other Forum, thus it lacks jurisdiction.
3.3. The reply is accompanied with copy of board resolution, booking policy of OP1, the correspondence exchanged between the parties.
4. (Replication of complainant) –The complainant filed detailed replication and opposed the allegations in written statement that OP1 is taking all these defenses to shield its own fault that despite receiving huge amount against confirmed tickets, the unnecessary plea is being taken. The OP1 admits about receipt of amount against confirmed tickets but the complainant was put to harassment and trauma and foreign land to buy fresh ticket despite confirmed return ticket through OP1. The complaint is correct. The replication is accompanied with photocopy of a passport of another person Sayed Saud, who had undertaken journey under same set of circumstances.
5.1. (Evidence)-The complainant led his evidence by filing his detailed affidavit, it is on the lines of complaint with the support of documents filed thereto and also additional facts of rejoinder in respect of name and copy of passport of Sayed Saud Ahmed.
5.2. OP1 led his evidence by filing detailed affidavit Mr. Jyothish V. Nair, Public Relation Officer & Admin Manager of OP1, the affidavit is replica of reply, which also refutes the plea of complainant in respect of name and passport of Sayed Saud Ahmed. The affidavit with supported with the documents filed with the reply.
6.1 (Final hearing)-At this stage, the complainant and the OP1 filed their detailed written arguments, they are hybrid of pleadings and evidence.
6.2. The parties were given opportunity to make oral submissions. Sh. Sandeep Singh, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) made the oral submissions but other OPs had not made any oral arguments.
7.1 (Findings)- The contentions of both the sides are considered, keeping in view the material on record either the documentary evidence or the other circumstances narrated in the form of circumstances orally.
The detail of case of the parties has already been mentioned, there is no dispute of complainant purchased ticket with return ticket and he had also utilized the confirmed air ticket on one side of journey but he faced the difficulties in return journey. There is also no complicated question involved to be adjudicated by civil court, the situation can be handled conveniently under summary procedure by this Commission. Thus, this Commission/Forum has jurisdiction to decide the issues.
7.2. Therefore, the narrow question for determination is whether or not there is deficiency of OP1? OR whether or not the complainant is at fault? By taking stock of all the material, the complaint is dismissed for the following reasons:-
(i) The booking was made by the complainant online and all particulars were filled in by the complainant including his name or-sir name, whatsoever.
(ii) The detail furnished for booking the air tickets and the details as mentioned in the passport were not matching, as the passport does not contain any sir-name as so mentioned in the air tickets booked, both the matter of record.
(iii) The omission or commission, aforementioned, is attributable to the complainant and not to the OP1, since all such details were furnished and filled in by the complainant.
(iv) In case the complainant undertook the journey from Delhi to Gungzhou to Chngchun on 31.07.2017/01.08.2017 and there was no inconvenience/objection, it does not mean that in the return journey it was to be construed valid particulars vis-à-vis the administration of OP2 were not satisfied with the particulars mentioned in the air ticket corresponding to the particulars mentioned in the passport, the OP1 cannot be blamed for.
(v) Each individual case and each journey is a specific situation oriented, therefore, it would not be at the rescue of the complainant that there was alike situation in that case of Sayed Saud Ahmed.
7.3. Accordingly, the issues stand determined the complainant could not prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP1 or OP2 and the complainant is not entitled for any relief claim. The complaint fails. The complaint is dismissed and it is disposed off. No order as to cost.
8: Announced on this 5th October 2023 [अश्विन 13, साका 1945].
9. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
