Usha Devi, a resident of Kangra, brought the complaint to the Forum stating that she wanted to seek admission in the diploma course in Library Science from Punjabi University, Patiala. She filled her form and after completing all formalities handed over the envelope to the courier company.

She stated that the envelope contained original matriculation certificate, experience certificate and a demand draft of Rs 3,420 along with the admission form. The complainant also alleged that at the time of accepting the packet, the respondents ensured timely delivery. The packet, however, it was alleged, never reached the destination.

The respondents maintained in their reply that they have a sister branch at Patiala and they delivered the packet there. It was added that the packet got lost in Patiala.

After hearing the contentions the bench held that although the packet was lost at Patiala, deficiency in services did occur because of which the complainant's precious year of educational career was wasted. Apart from this, she also suffered from mental agony and tension. Accordingly the bench ordered the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs 6,000 to the complainant.

Air Canada to pay Rs 15,000 for no-show flight.
Holding Air Canada guilty of deficiency in services insofar as it failed to convey to the complainant that a certain flight to Canada would not take off on the scheduled date, the Consumer Forum-II directed it to pay Rs 15,000 as compensation for the inconvenience caused.

The complaint was made by a Ropar resident Prithipal Singh, who stated that he booked an air ticket for travel by Air Canada from New Delhi to Toronto for undertaking the journey on September 30, 1995. The booking was secured by Bajaj Travels and the complainant reached Indira Gandhi International Airport. The complainant, however, alleged that the said flight did not take off on that day. It was added that he had to reach Canada by October 6 to keep his immigration intact and hence he made representations to the respondent. His flight was now scheduled for October 10.

The complainant, however, alleged that he was put to a lot of inconvenience and had to return to Ropar. He claimed Rs 20,000 which, he said, he spent on the return journey. Apart from this, he also claimed Rs 30,000 for harassment caused.

In its reply, Air Canada maintained that Bajaj Travels was not its agent. It was, however, established on record that some of the tickets of Air Canada were kept by Bajaj Travels and they were obviously for sale. It was also proved that intimation regarding change in the flight was not sent to the complainant in time and that was how he was put to inconvenience.