Thai Air Ways International

J.S. Ravish

M/s. Modern Testing Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

No.279, 2nd Floor, 10th Main Road

H. Siddaiah Road, Wilson Garden

Bangalore – 560 027

Opposite Parties:

1. K.S. Ravikanth Sethia

M/s. Balurghat Technologies Ltd.,

No.50, K.H. Road

Bangalore- 560 027

2. The Branch Manager

Thai Air Ways International

100/1, U.B. Anchorage Building

Richmond Road

Bangalore- 560 025


This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties (Ops in short) for the payment of Rs.7,50,000/-.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is businessmen he used visit the foreign countries as and when it is necessary for his business, in the month of July 2007 he wanted to visit Hong Kong Bangkok and China for that purpose he approached the Op to arrange the onward and return air tickets with confirmation. Accordingly, the Op has collected air ticket amount and issued the onward and return air ticket with confirmation.

After the complainant collecting the tickets has gone for business tour to Hong Kong, China via Bangkok as per his plan and he has traveled to Hong Kong and China. When the complainant started the return journey, according to his plan he presented the air ticket at Hong Kong Air Port at Thai Airways counter, they refused complainant ticket and told that ticket is not confirmed and it was under waiting list. The complainant was utter shocked to hear that status of his ticket and argued that it was confirmed.

Finally, the Thai Airway authorities refused and they did not entertain and stated that it was not confirmed ticket and ticket issued by the Op has made wrong information. Immediately complainant tried to contact the Op, over telephone several times and ultimately failed to get clear information from the Op. Subsequently the complainant contacted one of the office staff of the Op and explained the situation.

The office staff given a evasive reply stated that it was not confirmed and asked to come on next day by purchasing new ticket, it was further shocked the complainant. The complainant never expected such irresponsible reply from the Op. The complainant was supposed to meet one of his business client on next day at Bangkok, the Client was from USA and appointment given at 7.30 AM to 8.30 AM as per his plan and he was not able to meet him on that day and loss of a great business deal and it is spoil the reputation of the complainant and he incurred loss of Rs.6,00,000/-.

Finally, he has no option but to purchase another air ticket by paying extra cost of Rs.21,000/- and directly came to Bangalore by spending overnight at Hong Kong Air port without any basic amenities. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the Op and called upon to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- it includes loss and damages and for mental agony suffered by the complainant. Instead of paying the above said amount demanded by the complainant the Op has given an evasive reply notice. Hence the complainant approached this forum.

When the complaint was filed, only first Op was on record and on the application of the complainant second Op was impleaded, both Ops appeared through their respective counsels, filed their version and also gave evidences by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments on both sides and counsel of Op2 submitted written arguments.

According to learned counsel for complainant, Op1 issued confirmed tickets. After change of return date that was also confirmed. But OP2 refused to entertain as the ticket was not confirmed and it was in the waiting list. According to learned counsel for Op1 on the first stage, the tickets were confirmed but when the return date was changed by the complainant, the said date was not confirmed and the same was intimated to the complainant also.

According to learned counsel for Op2, Op1 is not their agent and the ticket issued by the Op1 was never confirmed as this booking was waitlisted. According to learned counsel for Op2, the booking was manipulated and waitlisted status mentioned as confirmed status and again submitted that Op1 who is the travel agent of the complainant has got issued. The manipulated air ticket was confirmed status. Op2 is nothing to do with the tickets issued by the Op1 and when the ticket was not confirmed, a separate ticket was issued by the Op2 for the return journey.

The point for consideration is whether the Op1 is the agent of Op2 or not? It is an admitted fact that the tickets were issued by Op1 on behalf of Op2 and the complainant performed his journey on 22/07/2007 from Bangalore to Bangkok and on 23/07/07 from Bangkok to Hong Kong, if the Op1 was not the agent of Op2, when the tickets were accepted by the Op2 for on journey of the complainant, the amount collected by Op1 naturally reaches the Op2 when the complainant has travelled in the airlines of Op2, because some problems arouse while returning on the same ticket. Op2 challenges the relationship of Op1 with Op2. According to Op1 also, the complainant changed his return date schedule and therefore asked the complainant to confirm the ticket while returning as it was waitlisted. But when we peruse the tickets nowhere it is mentioned that it was waitlisted. When no such endorsements were found on the ticket naturally the passenger will straight away goes to the airport for checking on the date of journey.

The Ops should have mentioned it clearly on the tickets when they have issued. But the reservation message also gives some ambiguity in respect of confirmation of tickets. When the Ops have not given clear status of the ticket specifically at the time of issuing the tickets and put the passengers in an embarrassing position in the airport definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Because of the mistakes of Ops, the complainant was forced to stay in Bangkok airport and to purchase a separate ticket to return to Bangalore. In addition to the amount which was already paid at the time of purchasing an earlier ticket. The complainant was forced to pay the amount for his return journey and the Ops are liable to return the said amount to the complainant.

The complainant has claimed Rs.6.00 lakhs towards loss of business as there was an appointment with his client who was from USA. The complainant has not produced any supporting evidence or documents about the meeting of his client and the loss of estimation of amount as stated by him. In the absence of specific evidence, oral evidence can not be accepted.

In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of Ops 1 and 2. Accordingly, we pass the following order.


Complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable.

Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to refund an amount of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand only) to the complainant with cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and this amount is to be paid to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.
Sign In or Register to comment.