1. The contents of the petition are that the a ticket was booked in the name of consumer/complainant on 21.5.2010 from Multan to Islamabad for 28 May 2010 in economy plus and for 30 May 2010 from Islamabad to Multan through his client M/s HRTS/DES, Islamabad. The complainant had to appear in an arbitration proceedings on 28/29 May 2010. On the date fixed the petitioner was issued boarding card bearing seat No. 1L on the Multan Airport. At the time of boarding on the flight the complainant was restrained to go to the plane and was told he had been deboarded and was asked to go back. At the boarding counter his boarding card was taken back and his luggage was returned and he was informed that the flight by which he had to go to Islamabad would have gone before the time when he will reach Lahore. Hence it is impossible for the crew to take the petitioner with them. The petitioner requested the respondent to take him to Lahore wherefrom he will arrange some other source to reach Islamabad but his request was rejected. The consumer received fee Rs. 2 lacs from his client which was to be returned which is a loss to the complainant. This has caused an irreparable damage to his representation due to faulty service of the respondent. The complainant asked the staff of the respondent to arrange some vehicle to drop him back as his personal car had left after dropping him at the airport but the respondent refused. Legal notice was sent by the complainant to the respondent. He has prayed for compensation of Rs. 2 lacs which has been returned by him to his client due to faulty services of the respondents. He has also claimed damages of Rs. 20 lacs and Rs. 50,000/- as legal charges.
2. The respondent appeared in the court through learned counsel and submitted their written reply in which they have admitted about booking of the ticket of the complainant, however they have given detail that the flight was late due to which there were chances of not availing of the connecting flight from Lahore to Islamabad. There were five passengers who had to travel through the flight PK-574 from Multan to Lahore and from Lahore to Islamabad through PK-654. The flight PK-574 was delayed therefore there were chances to miss the connecting flight from Lahore to Islamabad. As per version of the respondent five passengers were asked to travel up to Lahore at their own risk.
3. Out of these five passengers four passengers opted to travel while the complainant did not travel through that flight. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition. The petitioner has a version that he was never offered by the respondent to travel up to Lahore and his ticket has also not been refunded. He has asked that due to faulty services of the respondent he had to return the checque of Rs. 2 lacs which has been received by him from his client. He has claimed damages and legal charges. He prayed for acceptance of petition. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this application and has argued that the petitioner was offered to travel up to Lahore on his own risk but he refused to avail that chance and did not travel up to Lahore. He has argued that the other four passengers travelled from Multan to Lahore on their own risk. He has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. However he has offered that on presentation of purchased ticket by the petitioner the respondent will refund the amount of that ticket. He has also offered that the respondents are ready to give an extra return ticket to the petitioner from Multan to Islamabad and from Islamabad to Multan free of cost.
4. I have gone through the record, the record of the respondent shows that five passengers had to travel from Multan to Islamabad through connecting flight from Lahore. The flight from Multan to Lahore was delayed due to which there were chances to miss the connecting flight from Lahore to Islamabad. It is hard fact that boarding card was taken back from the complainant, however record of the respondent shows that four out of five passengers travelled from Multan to Lahore at their own risk which means that the complainant did not take that risk. It is also a hard fact that flight may be delayed due to bad whether or due to any technical fault and this delay is beyond the control of the respondent. It is a hard fact that the complainant suffered due to faulty service of the respondents. Therefore the petition in hand is hereby accepted with costs of the case and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of the ticket which was purchased by the complainant for his journey from Multan to Islamabad via Lahore. As per offer of the respondent they will also handover a return ticket to the complainant from Multan to Islamabad and Islamabad to Multan free of cost. It is to be noted that the complainant may file a civil suit for his civil claim of damages if he is advised so. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.