Order No.  27  dt.  26/07/2017

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant being an artist had to go to Bulgeria on 16.6.12 to attend an ‘artist residency’ and a ‘sole show’ of the complainant’s work at gallery in the garden, Plovdiv from 16^th to 30^th June, 2012. In order to attend such function the complainant booked an e-ticket from Indigo Airlines Aeroflot for Kolkata to Delhi through their authorized agent ‘World Link Tours and Trvels’, o.p. from Delhi to Bulgaria / Sofia via Moscow by paying a valuable consideration. There was delay in the flight from Delhi to Moscow and thereby the complainant failed to avail the connecting flight to Sofia. The complainant was accommodated to a flight to Sofia. The luggage of the complainant was transferred to the flight accordingly. On reaching the destination the complainant found that the luggage was missing and he made complaint to the airport authority. Reaching Plovdiv the complainant waited there for 24 hours but no luggage did nor arrive. Because of such delay in the flight and not availing of the luggage of the complainant the programme and all the works were spoiled. The complainant after reaching Sofia Airport and requested to find out the luggage though he had the valid return ticket for his return journey to India. In spite of giving proper address to the airport authority to hand over the luggage to him but no effort was made by airport authority. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for handing over the luggage to the complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for the loss or damage of the articles and also compensation Rs.1,13,000/- for mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.

            The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that o.p. being the travel agent is only authorized to issue ticket and after handing over the genuine ticket for a genuine price there was no error in ticketing part, maintaining flight schedule is in the hand of airlines. The o.p. has no authority to question the time schedule maintained by the airport authority. Regarding the misplacement of luggage the said fact only arose not within India and for misplacement of luggage the airport authority was responsible. After facing such ordeal by the complainant he never contacted the o.p. and if the complainant would have contacted the o.p., they could have tried to assist him to minimize the problem. The residence of the complainant is situated near the branch office of o.p. but the complainant never visited the office of o.p. to inform the o.p. as to what had happened to the complainant. On the basis of the said fact o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant purchased the e-ticket from o.p.?
2. Whether being the authorized agent of the different airlines to sell air ticket can be held liable for the loss of luggage of the passenger / complainant?
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of o.p.?
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Decision with reasons:

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant being an artist availed of the tour programme for attending different places to perform his solo show. During the time of journey there was delay in the flight to reach the destination place for which the complainant failed to avail of the connecting flight from Moscow and thereby he had to avail of another flight but his luggage was not transported to the flight which he availed of, subsequently after arrival of the airport he found that his luggage was missing and he lodged a complaint to airport authority but no action was taken. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for the damage regarding the loss sustained by him as well as other reliefs.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that the complainant being a customer approached the o.p. for purchasing ticket and e-ticket was provided to him and he availed of the flight as per the tour programme provided by the complainant. The tickets were also arranged accordingly. After availing of the ticket the complainant availed the flight at different places including different states. So far as the delay in the flight is concerned for which o.p. had no had no had in it. The airport authority can also clarify the said point. Ld. lawyer also emphasized that the missing of luggage as alleged by the complainant, the complainant ought to have lodged complaint before the airport authority and they could have resolved the problem faced by o.p. Since o.p. being the seller of e-ticket of the flight, therefore the allegation levelled against the o.p. is not sustainable. On the basis of the said fact o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant is an artist and he had to travel at various places for performing his solo show. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the ticket from o.p. It is undisputed fact that the complainant on the basis of the e-ticket provided by o.p. availed of the air flight. So far as the delay of flight is concerned o.p. cannot have any say in this regard. Only the airlines authority can give such answer to the question put by the complainant regarding the delay in running of flight and not availing of the corresponding flight at different places. So far as the missing of the luggage is concerned the complainant himself stated in the complaint that the luggage was insured with the insurance company and he received the compensation from the insurance company. Because of such fact the complainant did not make airport authority as a party in this case. though the complainant subsequently denied that he did not receive any damage from the insurance company but it is curious enough why the insurance company and the airport authority have not been parties in this case. Leaving aside all those necessary parties the complainant put blame upon the o.p. who had no role in respect of the delay in the flight as well as missing of luggage of the complainant. The case filed by the complainant is totally a misconceived one and the complainant will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.     

            Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.118/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.