Padala Srinivasa Somasunda Subbareddy, S/o Venkata
Satyanarayana Reddy, 37 years, D.No.60-8-2003, P N T Colony,
Rajahmundry 533 105. ..Complainant.
A N D
Agent, Deccan Airlines, HPCL Petrol Bunk, D.No.80-24-11,
A V Apparao Road, Rajahmundry 533 103.
2.Air Deccan- 36, Cunningham Road,
Bangalore, 560052. ..Opposite parties.
O R D E R
This is a complaint filed under section.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- damages, costs and such other reliefs.
2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that, the complainant taken flight ticket to go to Chennai on 15.7.2006 for business purpose from the Vijayawada. The 2nd opposite party informed the complainant on 14.7.2006 at 9 PM that the flight was cancelled and asked him to reschedule his ticket. The complainant rescheduled his ticket on 15.8.2006. The complainant was again informed by the 2nd opposite party on the night of 14.8.2006 stating that again the flight was cancelled and asked the complainant to reschedule his ticket. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party and rescheduled his ticket to 17.8.2006. On 17.8.2006 when the complainant is ready to leave, the 2nd opposite party intimated that the flight on 17.8.2006 was cancelled and the said ticket may be rescheduled. The complainant again approached the 1st opposite party and rescheduled his ticket to 19.8.2006. In the same manner again on the night of 18.8.2006 the 2nd opposite party intimated that the said flight was cancelled. Again the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and rescheduled his ticket to 24.8.2006. On 24.8.2006 when the complainant hired a taxi for Rs.1,000/- and reached Vijayawada Airport. The Airport Authorities stated that the flight was cancelled on that date and again I returned by hiring taxi by spending Rs.1,000/-. I approached number of times the 1st opposite party, but he was not available and later he stated that the above said ticket was rescheduled for five times and the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Likewise the complainant booked his tickets for four times and same is cancelled by the opposite parties for number of times amounts to deficiency in service. Due to the acts of the opposite parties the complainant sustained heavy loss in his business and also had lot of mental agony. Hence, the complaint.
3. The 1st opposite party filed written version denying all the material allegations made by the complainant. The 1st opposite party submits that he is the agent of the 2nd opposite party and he sells out the Air journey tickets to the travelers and he has no control over the changes in the schedule timings or the arrivals and departures and cancellation of flight by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant booked his air ticket to travel by air by the 2nd opposite partys flight with a ticket bearing No.DA05120855, from Vijayawada to Chennai on 15.7.2006 and the complainant requested to reschedule his journey on 15.8.2006 and accordingly this opposite party rescheduled the ticket on the above said date. The opposite party further submits that again the complainant requested to reschedule his ticket to 17.8.2006 from 15.8.2006, again from 17.8.2006 to 19.8.2006 and from 19.8.2006 to 24.8.2006. As per the request of the complainant the 1st opposite party reschedule his journey ticket from time to time and accommodated the complainants request beyond the routine. It is further submitted that on 24.8.2006 the complainant was due to travel to chennai from Vijayawada as per the records available with them. Thereafter the complainant never approached the opposite parties and the opposite party all of a sudden received the summons from the Honourable Forum with a claim of Rs.1,15,000/- by the complainant for the alleged loss in his business. This opposite party is not liable to pay any claim, as he is only an agent for selling the tickets. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the same may be dismissed with costs.
The 2nd opposite party filed its written version denying the allegations made by the complainant stating that the complainant has to show the strict proof of cancellation of flights on various dates. It is admitted that there was an announcement about the delay initially and latter cancellation of flight as the technical snag not rectified. The complainant has exaggerated the facts to make out a case in his favour against the opposite parties and he has not filed any document that he traveled by taxi from Rajahmundry to Vijayawada. If the ticket has been rescheduled as per the instruction of the 2nd opposite party, the question of validity will not arise and for the sake of convenience of the complainant the ticket might have been rescheduled number of times and the cancellation of flight is due to technical reasons. There was a cancellation of flight on 24.8.2006 due to technical snag and this opposite party is not liable for any additional journey costs for which the complainant traveled. This opposite party is not aware that the complainant had to come from Rajahmundry to vijayawada and they are not responsible for other expenses. This opposite party is only point to point service and not undertakes any responsibility for the rest of the journey traveled by the complainant in order to complete his journey and they are not liable for any damages and the complaint is liable to dismiss.
4. Exs.A.1 to A.27 has been marked on behalf of the complainants and Exs.B.1 to B.11 were marked behalf of the opposite parties and no oral evidence has been adduced on either side.
5. Heard both sides. Both the parties filed written arguments.
6.[FONT="] [/FONT]The points that arise for consideration are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
2) Whether the complainants are entitled for any relief, If so, to what
7.POINT NO.1: Admitted facts in this case are that the complainants obtained two policies vide Exs.A.1 from the 2nd opposite party and paid the premium accordingly. Due to heavy floods in the month of August, 2006 the entire Uppalaguptham Mandal submerged in the flood water. The complainants intimated the same to the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party appointed a surveyor and he requested the complainants for relevant documents. As per the surveyors report the opposite party sent a settlement intimation voucher for Rs.30,000/- and the same has been marked under Ex.A.2. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties vide Ex.A.3. The 2nd opposite party wrote a letter repudiating the claim vide Ex.A.6. They also wrote another letter about the settlement of the claim under policy No.151101/46/05/39/00000084 under Ex.A.7. Ex.A.8 is a letter issued by the Asst Secretary, Gramp Panchayat, S Yanam. Ex.A.9 was issued by the MRO, Uppalaguptham stating that the fish tanks were completely washed out due to Godavari floods from 10.8.2006 to 14.8.2006 in S Yanam. Ex.A.10 and 11 are the letters written by the surveyor of the 2nd opposite party. Ex.A.12 is the bunch of photographs. Ex.A.13 is the copy of the petition filed before the Lok Adalat. Ex.A.14 is the claim form certificate. Ex.A.15 is the purchase receipt of fish. Ex.A.16 is the expenditure statement of bund. Exs.A.17 to A.25 is the receipts relating to the purchase of Bran Oil. Ex.A.26 is the bund repair estimation made by Sri Sai Associates. Ex.A.27 is the statement showing the particulars of fish culture tanks issued by the Fishery development officer. The opposite parties filed Ex.B.1 fish insurance policy, Ex.B.2 proposal form for inland Fresh water fish, Ex.B.3 is the surveyor report filed by Yusaf Khan, Ex.B.4 is another surveyor report for fish tank bunds, Ex.B.5 is the claim form of fish tank bund, Ex.B.8 is the statement of account of the opposite party, Ex.B.9 is the proposal form and Surveyor report, Ex.B.10 is the proposal form and Ex.B.11 is the proposal form with receipt for fresh water fish insurance.
The complainant contended that the entire Uppalaguptham Area was submerged in the floodwater and the said area was declared as drought area by the Mandal Revenue Officer and also the Co-operative Societies. The complainant further contended that he submitted all the relevant documents to the 2nd opposite party, but the 2nd opposite party failed to settle the claim and repudiated the same in 2nd policy. They further contended that the estimated loss of damaged bund is Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.A.26. The 2nd opposite party contended that as per the policy condition No.13 of the fish insurance policy No.151101/47/05/46/00000318, the said policy seizes as and when the insured sells them and further risk would not be covered. The complainant shall maintain records on daily by monthly basis relating to different stages of fish stock in various tanks as per 7th condition of the policy. But, they failed to maintain the same. As per the surveyors report the complainant are not maintaining any stock registers or related accounts by the date of the calamity.
After perusing the material on record the complainant on his own estimated the damage of the bund under Ex.A.26 to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite parties surveyor valued the claim to a tune of Rs.38,687/- under Ex.B.4. As per his report the complainant may be entitle for Rs.38,687/- only.
The 1st opposite party is the bank in which the complainants obtained loan under Kissan Credit. This opposite party is no way concerned with regard to the insurance claim. Hence, the complaint against this 1st opposite party is dismissed.
The 2nd opposite partys surveyor filed another report with regard to fish insurance in detail and he reported that the complainants has not taken any preventive measures to control the weeds and predators etc and has not find any fish stock in the tanks and there is no stocks of feed and medicines found at the tank. The complainants have not maintained any daily, monthly fish culture record keeping register and as such there is no stock on the date of occurrence of the calamity.
As per the above records we opine that the complainants are entitled for Rs.38,687/- as per the surveyors report vide Ex.B.4, with regard to the insurance under policy No.151101/46/05/39/00000084. With regard to the Policy No.151101/47/05/00318, as the complainants has not maintained any records as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the surveyor stated that there were no stocks at the time of their inspection and arrived that the insured is not cultivating fish at the time of floods as per his investigation. Basing on the surveyors report we opine that the complainants are not entitled for any claim with regard to the fish insurance policy.
8. POINT NO.2: In the result, the complaint of the complainant is allowed in part directing the 2nd opposite party to pay Rs.38,687 (Rupees thirty eight thousand six hundred and eighty seven only) towards claim under policy No.151101/46/05/13/00000084 with interest @9% P.A from the date of filing i.e1.7.2008 till the date of realization. The 2nd opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.