Air Deccan

C.C.No.51/2008
Between:

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
1.P V Ramana, Manager, Srinivasa Agencies, Authorised
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.
This case is coming on 17.4.2009 .for final hearing before this Forum and upon perusing the complaint, and other material papers on hand and upon hearing the arguments of the complainant in person and Sri B S P Chowdary, advocate for the 1st opposite party and Sri V J K S Rao, Advocate for the 2nd opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum has pronounced the following.
O R D E R
(By Smt.H V Ramana, Member)
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 party’s 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 complainant’s 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=&quot] [/FONT]The points that arise for consideration are:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2) Whether the complainants are entitled for any relief, If so, to what
relief?

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 surveyor’s 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 party’s surveyor filed another report with regard to fish insurance in detail and he reported that the complainant’s 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 surveyor’s 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.

Comments

  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    Complaint Case No. SC/21/O/2007
    1. Debasish Chatterjee S/o. Late Sudhanshu Chatterjee, C/o. S.K.Chatterjee, R.V. Enclave-III, Flat No. 102, Friends' Colony Nagpur - 400013, West Bengal S/o. Late Sudhanshu Chatterjee, C/o. S.K.Chatterjee, R.V. Enclave-III, Flat No. 102, Friends' Colony Nagpur - 400013
    West Bengal
    2. Dipten Chatterjee S/o. Debasish Chatterjee, MB 135, Master Block Shakkarpur, New Delhi-110092, West Bengal S/o. Debasish Chatterjee, MB 135, Master Block Shakkarpur, New Delhi-110092
    West Bengal
    3. Dr. Kalidas Banerjee S/o. Late Haridas Banerjee, Flat No.2, 28-F, Brojen Mukherjee Road, Behala, Kolkata- 700034, West Bengal S/o. Late Haridas Banerjee, Flat No.2, 28-F, Brojen Mukherjee Road, Behala, Kolkata- 700034
    West Bengal
    4. Kunal Banerjee S/o. Dr. Kalidas Banerjee, Flat no. 2, 28-F, Brojen Mukherjee Road, Behala, Kolkata-700034, West Bengal S/o. Dr. Kalidas Banerjee, Flat no. 2, 28-F, Brojen Mukherjee Road, Behala, Kolkata-700034
    West Bengal
    5. Subhasish Chatterjee S/o. Late Sudhanshu Kumar Chatterjee, C/o. Mr. Lal, Dhanbad-826001, West Bengal S/o. Late Sudhanshu Kumar Chatterjee, C/o. Mr. Lal, Dhanbad-826001
    West Bengal
    6. Samu Chakraborty S/o. Late Harakinkar Chakraborty, Shib Tala Para, Sainthia, Birbhum, West Bengal S/o. Late Harakinkar Chakraborty, Shib Tala Para, Sainthia, Birbhum
    West Bengal
    ....Appellant(s)
    Versus
    1. Air Deccan Air Deccan Aviation Limited, 35/2, Cunningham Road, Opposite Canara Bank, Bangalore - 560052,&Kingfisher Air Lines Limited, Kingfisher House, Western Express Highway, Vile Parle(E), Mumbai-400099 , West Bengal Air Deccan Aviation Limited, 35/2, Cunningham Road, Opposite Canara Bank, Bangalore - 560052,&Kingfisher Air Lines Limited, Kingfisher House, Western Express Highway, Vile Parle(E), Mumbai-400099
    West Bengal

    ....Respondent(s)

    BEFORE :
    HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI , PRESIDENT
    MR. A K RAY , Member
    MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER , Member

    PRESENT: Mr. Goutam Chakraborty, Advocate for the Appellant 1
    Mr. Sukhen Chatterjee. , Advocate for the Respondent 1
    *JUDGEMENT/ORDER

    No. 4/10.11.2009.

    Decree Holder through Mr. Goutam Chakraborty, the Ld. Advocate and JDR through Mr. Sukhendranath Chatterjee, the Ld. Advocate are present. Mr. Chatterjee, the Ld. Advocate hands over three D.Ds amounting to Rs. 56,294/- each of the same date i.e. 04.11.2009 totalling a sum of Rs. 1,68,882/- to Mr. Goutam Chakraborty, the Ld. Advocate for the Decree Holder and states that subject to encashment of the D.Ds full amount now being paid taking into consideration the earlier payment made. Therefore, the execution case stands disposed of on final satisfaction on payment of aforesaid as it appears that the compliance has been duly made.
    Pronounced
    Dated the 10 November 2009
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    F.A.No.572 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.528 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I HYDERABAD
    Between

    Satyanarayana Minda S/o late Gajanand Minda
    Hindu, aged about 63 years, Occ: Business
    R/o No.4-1-648, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad

    Appellant/Complainant

    A N D

    1. Air Deccan,
    Head Office at 35, Cunningham Road,
    Opposite Canara Bank, Bangalore
    rep. by its Manager

    2. The Area Manager,
    Air Deccan, Branch office at Begumpet
    Airport, Begumpet, Hyderabad

    Respondents/ opposite parties



    Counsel for the Appellant Party in person

    Counsel for the Respondents Ms Vijaya Sagi



    QUORUM:

    THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
    SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER



    MONDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER

    TWO THOUSAND NINE

    Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
    ***



    The complainant being not satisfied by the order passed by the District Forum , Hyderabad I in C,D.No.528 of 2006 whereby the respondent was directed to refund the fare of return ticket from New Dlehi to Hyderabad with interest @12% from the date of claim, filed the appeal contending that the District Forum failed to notice that the Flight DN 608 did not land at Hyderabad on 27-03-2006 as also that the statement of the Head-call centre of the respondent that the flight was cancelled on the said date.



    The factual matrix of the case is that on 27the March,2006 the appellant purchased four tickets for his family members to travel by flight from Hyderabad to New Delhi on 9th February and 10th February,2006, 14th March and 27th March,2006 to have satguru darshan and satsang at Dera Beas. Having grown suspicious about the punctuality of the respondent, the appellant addressed letter dated 31st December,2005 seeking assurance from the respondent that the flight would not be delayed so that the appellant and his family members would reach the destination to fructify the purpose of their visit, i.e., satguru darshan . The respondent through their reply dated 7th January,2006 informed the appellant that they could not give any such assurance. The appellant addressed another letter dated 9th January,2006 which had met with the same answer. The appellant travelled by flight on14th March,2006 from Hyderabad to New Delhi. The appellant’s son informed him on 26th March,2006 while the appellant was at Dera Beas that the respondent cancelled the flight from New Delhi

    to Hyderabad without giving intimation as to the time for the next flight. The appellant made enquiry with the representative of the respondent on 27th March,2006 as to why the flight was cancelled as also the time for the next flight. The representative of the respondent had not given any reply whereon the appellant requested to reserve a ticket for evening flight for which the representative of the respondent replied that it was not possible to arrange reservation for the evening flight. Another official of the respondent spoke very rude by using filthy language stating that as and when he was informed by his higher ups. The appellant could reach Hyderabad with great difficulty by purchasing ticket to travel by train. The appellant experienced physical and mental harassment by the attitude of the respondent. The appellant claimed an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation besides claiming refund of air fare ,damages of Rs.10,000/- as also the costs



    The respondents resisted the claim by filing counter stating that no guarantee can be given about the flight arrivals and departure. The flight schedules are changed due to bad weather, security reasons, VIP movement, technical reasons etc. All these reasons are not within the control of the respondents. The schedule departure time of the flight was 8.20 hours. Due to some technical reasons the flight was rescheduled. The revised time of departure was 14.30 hours. At the time of booking the appellant had given his contact No.24742693 and destination No.55568430. On 26.3.2006 the respondents excecutive Hemanth Das informed the appellant about the change in the schedule. The call was attended by the appellant’s son. The appellant had not reported for boarding in the flight which was rescheduled to take off at 14.30 hours. The appellant missed the flight. The respondents cannot be held liable for the lapse on the part of the appellant.

    The Head-Call Centre of the respondents, Asif Ebrahim filed additional affidavit stating that the flight No.DN608 schedule to depart from Delhi on 27.3.2006 at 8.28 a.m was cancelled. The cancellation of the flight was informed the son of the appellant. It was stated that the fact of reschedule of the flight in respect of cancellation was inadvertently mentioned in the affidavit filed by the head-legal of the respondents, Navodit Mehra. The additional affidavit was filed on 27.4.2007 whereas the affidavit was filed on 3.10.2006.

    The appellant has filed his affidavit and additional affidavit, documents marked as Exs.A1 to A13 whereas on behalf of the respondent, Navodit Mehra, Head-Legal, Asif Ebrahim filed their affidavits. Exs.B1 and B2, PNR Status and copy of E-mail.

    The point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to any compensation and if so to what relief?

    The appellant purchased four tickets for his family members to trave by flight from Hyderabad to new Delhi and return from new Delhi to Hyderabad on 9.2.2006, 20.2.2006, 19.3.2006 and 27.3.2006. The visit to Delhi was stated to have been intended to have Sadguru Darshan and Satsang at Dera Beas. Suspecting the punctuality of the respondents, the appellants had earnestly requested them to provide assurance that the flights on the aforesaid dates would be punctual. The appellant to the effect has addressed letter Ex.A1 which was acknowledged under Ex.A2 postal acknowledgement. The respondents through letter dated 7.10.2006 Ex.A3 had given reply that they could not give assurance that the flights should take off on time. Being not satisfied with the reply under Ex.A3, the appellant had addressed another letter dated 9.1.2006. Ex.A4 is another letter from the appellant to which a reply dated 14.1.2006 under Ex.A5 furnishing the same answer that the respondents were not in a position to give confirmation of the schedules. Having entertained the apprehension of uncertainty in the flight schedule the appellant cancelled the tickets bearing No.DA02778232 dated9.2.2006 and DA02778232 dated 20.06.2006 from Hyderabad to Delhi and for return journey from Delhi to Hyderabad. However, he travelled by flight from Hyderabad to New Delhi on 4.3.2006. Therefore, at this juncture the hassle free journey undertaken by the appellant had taken twists and turns amounts to inconvenience and hardship the appellant was subject to face when he was informed by his son at 5 p.m. on 26.3.2006 while he was at Dearbeas while the flight was cancelled by the respondents without furnishing any reasons as also that there was no announcement as to the arrangement of the next flight, the appellant had made enquiry with the representative of the respondents at New Delhi as to why the flight was cancelled as also that when the next flight would be arranged. The respondents stated to have informed the appellant that he was not in a position to show the reason for cancellation of the flight. The appellant had stated that he was informed that the next flight in the evening on the same day could not be reserved. Further the appellant has stated that an official of the respondent had rudely behaved with him. The appellant had to return to Hyderabad on 27.3.2006 by train due to non-arrangement of flight by the respondents. It is stated that due to sudden cancellation of the flight by the respondents, the appellant had suffered physical and mental agony, hardship.

    The version of the respondents is that due to technical snag on 27.3.2006 the flight in question was cancelled. It is submitted by the appellant that the version of the respondent was not cancellation of the flight on 27.5.2006 but it was their version that the flight was reschedule on the said date. It is true, the respondents at the first instance had filed an affidavit of head-Legal Navodit Mehra to the effect that on 27.3.2006 flight was due to technical reasons as also that it was rescheduled. However, the head-Call Centre of the respondents had filed supplementary affidavit stating that the flint No.DN608 from new Delhi to Hyderabad which was schedule to depart from new Delhi on 27.3.2006 at 8.20 a.m. was cancelled. An attempt has been to show that inadvertent discrepancy had crept in the statement made in the affidavit filed in the first instance stating that the flight was rescheduled. It is pertinent to note that the appellant had submitted that only on his putting hectic and intensified investigation as to ascertain whether the flight in question on 27.3.2006 was rescheduled. The appellant filed Ex.A13 issued by the Airport Authority of India to establish that the Flight DN 608 from New Delhi to Hyderabad was in fact cancelled. It is the submission of the appellant only after he had filed Ex.A13, the respondent had filed additional affidavit stating that the flight was cancelled. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the Head-Legal and supplementary affidavit filed by the Head-Call Centre of the respondent would amply establish that the respondent no.1 attempted to turn around to show that the flight was rescheduled, however, cancelled. Though the respondent contended that they have had in advance informed the son of the appellant that the flight was rescheduled, the respondents have filed Exs.B1 and B2, PNR status report and copy of e-Mail to show that they had conveyed the message that there was delay in flight schedule on 27.3.2006. Having taken such recourse to the events, the respondents have committed a mistake one after other by making statements, inconsistent and discrepancy of each other that stating at the first instance that the flight was rescheduled and thereafter making as statement quite different to the earlier statement that the flight although was cancelled. The appellant is a business man by profession no doubt might have suffered mental tension and hardship as he had to return from New Delhi to Hyderabad by a train as also that the representative and official of the respondent had not even informed him of the reason for cancellation of the flight. The official of the respondents said to have behaved in rude manner with the appellant. All these facts would constitute deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

    The District Forum has directed the respondents to refund the airfare paid by the appellant for purchase of the ticket for return journey from New Delhi to Hyderabad. The appellant had submitted that due to the attitude of the respondents in sudden cancellation as also that they had come up with inconsistent pleas to cover up their lacunae. We have taken into consideration the inconvenience caused to the appellant by the sudden cancellation of the flight by the respondents. In the circumstances, the attitude of the respondents cannot be construed with a lenient view inasmuch as the respondent has established organization having collected charges from the appellant in advance stooped to the level of stating a blatant lie that the flight was rescheduled despite the fact that it was cancelled on 27.3.2006. Keeping in view of the hardship suffered by the appellant as also the indifferent attitude exhibited by the respondent towards the appellant, we hold the appellant entitled to compensation an amount of Rs.20,000/- payable to him by the respondent.

    In the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum. The respondents/opposite parties directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and refund an amount of Rs.2089/- along with costs of Rs.2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/195

    Sri Tarun Kumar Bose
    ...........Appellant(s)
    Vs.

    AIR DECAN and another
    ...........Respondent(s)
    BEFORE:
    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    ORDER

    In the Court of the

    Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

    8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
    CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 195 / 2007
    1) Sri Tarun Kumar Bose,

    1/1, Ram Mohan Roy Road, Kokkata-700009.
    Complainant

    ---Verses---

    1) AIR DECAN,

    35/2, Cunningham Road,

    Bangalore-560052.

    2) COX & KING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,

    6, Little Russel Street, Kolkata-71.
    Opposite Party



    Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

    Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member.
    Order No. 2 2 Dated 1 0 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 9 .

    Complainant Tarun Kr. Bose by filing a petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act on 19.6.07 has prayed for issuing direction upon the o.ps. to pay Rs.1040/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. and awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.

    It is case of the petitioner that his son and grandson are residing at Geneva and due their busy schedule of work they are supposed to travel Geneva to Mumbai to Kolkata and back to Geneva via Mumbai. Accordingly, petitioner booked two tickets from o.p. no.2 Cox and Kings (India) Pvt. Ltd. the authorized booking agent of o.p. no.1 Airdecan and tickets were booked in the name of Aninda Bose and Rabi Bose for journey from Mumbai to Kolkata on 18.12.06. Another ticket was purchased in the same name for journey from Kolkata to Mumbai on 23.12.06 and accordingly the petitioner paid Rs.13293/- by an account payee cheque dt.10.10.06. Aninda Bose and Rabi Bose arrived at Mumbai and decided to come to Kolkata and they reached and accordingly they reached Mumbai Airport on 18.12.06 for journey to Kolkata by Air Decan flight having their valid and confirmed tickets purchased by the petitioner, but on their arrival at Mumbai Airport they came to learn that the Air Decan flight was cancelled for Kolkata due to shortage of aircraft. But it was not communicated either to the petitioner or Aninda Bose or Rabi Bose and as such, they could not come to Kolkata and ultimately, they decided to reside at Mumbai and returned back to Geneva on the fixed date of journey. It was communicated to the petitioner by Aninda Bose and Rabi Bose and the petitioner was highly shocked and depressed to know about it.

    Thereafter, on 5.1.07 the petitioner sent a letter to o.p. no.1 for refund of air fare of Rs.13,293/- for their journey from Mumbai to Kolkata and vise versa.

    O.ps refunded only Rs.12,253.80 out of Rs.13,293/- but they ought to have refunded the full amount of Rs.13,293/- because the flight was cancelled due to the fault of the o.ps. and the o.ps. did not explain for short refund of money to the extent of Rs.1040/-. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this case with the aforesaid prayer.

    O.p. no.1 filed w/v on 5.11.07 alleging therein that the complainant by filing this petition of complaint has attempted to misuse the process of law and his allegations are baseless and unfounded. There is no deficiency of service nor there is any unfair trade practice on their part. They have also denied all the material allegations against them.

    Complainant has suppressed the material fact to the effect that due to some operational reasons the flight was cancelled and all the passengers of flight no. DN 682 were accommodated in flight DN 642.

    At the time of booking of tickets complainant gave his land line telephone no.21157493 and call centre employee of o.p. no.1 called on his contact number in the evening at about 7-45 p.a. on 16.12.07 and also on 17.12.07 at 5-25 p.a., but there was no response and the complain ant has deliberately suppressed this fact. So the allegation of the complainant that he was not informed earlier about the cancellation of the flight is not at all true.

    Their further case is that complainant purchased the ticket through o.p. no.2, according to the terms of ticket, if the ticket is purchased through the travel agent and the booking amount has been received by the airlines through travel agent, it (airlines) refunds the booking amount in the account of the travel agent only and the passenger has to collect the refund from the same place wherefrom he got his booking the tickets were purchased from o.p. no.2 against payment of Rs.13,293/- and the flight DN 682 was cancelled for the said flight full amount has been refunded where as the return flight was on time but the passengers did not report to check in counter for boarding and the cancellation of the return ticket has been done according to the cancellation policy. As return tickets were not utilized and asked for cancellation, the cancellation has been processed as per the cancellation policy and refundable amount has been refunded in the account of travel agent, o.p. no.2. As per the terms and conditions of the contract between the Air Decan and its passengers, Air Decan has the right to delay or cancel the flight without notice and such delay or cancellation may be caused due to meteorological conditions, mechanical failure, act of nature, force major, strikes, riots etc. In view of this position, the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    Decision with reasons :

    It appears on perusal of the record that o.p. no.1 filed its w/v on 5.11.07, but o.p. no.2 although it appeared and filed BNA, did not file w/v. It further appears on perusal of the record vide order no.10 dt.23.4.08 that ld. Counsel for o.p. no.2 appeared and undertook to file power, but no w/v was filed. But o.p. no.1 has filed w/v and evidence. Petitioner on 23.4.08 filed the affidavit of examination in chief.

    It is the specific case of the complainant that his son and grand son are residing at Geneva and in order to meet their relation they were supposed to travel Geneva to Mumbai to Kolkata and back to Geneva via Mumbai. And accordingly, petitioner booked two tickets from o.p. no.2 who is the authorized booking agent of o.p. no.1 on 10.10.06 and the tickets were booked in the name of Aninda Bose and Rabi Bose for journey from Mumbai to Kolkata on 18.12.06 vide PNR no. DA 07064669. Another ticket was purchased in their names for the return journey from Kolkata to Mumbai on 23.12.06 on payment of Rs.13293/-.

    Aninda Bose and Rabi Bose had been Mumbai on 18.12.06 for journey to Kolkata by flight of o.p. no.1 having their valid and confirmed tickets, but surprisingly they came to learn that the Air Decan flight was cancelled for Kolkata due to shortage of air craft, but it was not communicated to them earlier and accordingly, they could not come to Kolkata and decided to reside at Mumbai and return back to Geneva. Petitioner was highly shocked and suffered mental agony and on 5.1.07 he sent letter to o.p. no.2 for refund of air fare of Rs.13,293/-, but o.p. no.2 refunded Rs.12,253.80 out of Rs.13,293/- and did not pay the compensation. And accordingly, he has prayed for getting back Rs.1040/- as the difference money (Rs.13293 – Rs.12253) and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Admittedly, two tickets were purchased for the aforesaid journey, annex-A and the cheque was received in favour of o.p. no.1 and Aninda Bose and Rabi Bose for their journey, annex-B. It appears from annex-C, on the subject of flight cancellation that in case of circumstances beyond control, the career may without notice cancel a flight and full refund of ticket to passengers and the passengers will be required to collect the refund from the point of purchase. Here the point of purchase is Cox and Kings (India) Pvt. Ltd., o.p. no.2. Complainant wrote letter to Cox and Kings (India) Pvt. Ltd. for refund of air fare from Air Decan and compensation of Rs.10,000/- per head for cancellation of such flight, annex-D. We have also pointed out that o.p. no.2 even in spite of giving assurance to the forum that they will file the w/v, they have not done so.

    In the w/v o.p. no.1 has categorically stated that not they but the booking agent viz o.p. no.2 is liable to pay the refund money because they have already given the fare to the booking agent for cancellation of the journey. The contents of evidence on affidavit of o.p. no.1are in tune with their averments of their w/v except the terms and conditions of cancellation of flight which they have corroborated in their evidence.

    The claim of the petitioner is only the difference money amounting to Rs.1040/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- as claimed in the petition of complaint. We have also perused the evidence of the petitioner. In the answer to the questionnaire filed by o.p. no.1. Complainant has categorically said that the o.p. no.1 did not disclose and explain the terms and conditions of the tickets to him and he has not signed on any tickets containing terms and conditions and he also furnished his telephone number both to o.p. nos.1 and 2 and o.p. no.2 did not intimate him about the cancellation of the flight no. DN 682.

    In their BNA, o.p. no.2 has stated that no person other than the complainant has made any attempt or to justify the statement of the complainant and their claim is nothing, but after thought and there is no deficiency of service on their part and accordingly, the case is liable to be dismissed.

    It is not understood that when they have asserted emphatically that there is no deficiency of service on their part what debarred them to file their w/v to establish their own case and the BNA is not the pleading. Case of either of the party is to be proved on the basis of pleading supported by corroborative evidence and this provision is highly lacking on the part of the o.p. no.2. Having due regard to the facts circumstances, evidence on record both orally and documentarily, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

    Hence,

    Ordered,

    That the case is allowed on contest against o.p. no.1 and ex parte against o.p. no.2. O.p. no.2 is directed to pay Rs.1040/- (Rupees one thousand forty) only to the complainant positively within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and o.p. nos.1 and 2 both are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only positively within thirty days from the date of communication of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. on the grand total of Rs.12,040/- (Rupees twelve thousand forty) only till full realization. Fees paid are correct.

    Supply copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.
  • AmelliaAmellia Junior Member
    edited October 2011
    Well....i don't have any complain....Deccan airlines have always been a superb traveling medium for me...i just love the services they provide at such low cost...Deccan airlines under the leadership of Mr. Mallya have done amazingly good in the sector of low cost and nation airlines. They have set new measures of services and other facilities...i had my first trip with Deccan in 2003 and now I am a big fan of Mallya and the airlines...!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.