DOF.28.3.2009 DOO.6/ 8/2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 6th day of August 2010 CC.83/2009 Smt.Shyma Manoj, Advocate, Sarovar, P.O.Palayad, Thalassery. (Rep. by Adv.K.K.Ramesh) Complainant General Manger, Indian Airlines, Calicut Airport, P.O.Karipoor Airport. 673 647. (Rep. by Adv.K.Vinod Raj) Opposite Party O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.50, 000/- as compensation. The case of the complainant is that her husband is employed in Dubai she booked two seats in Economy classes for herself and her minor child of 7 years old for their journey from Calicut to Dubai to meet her husband in flight Number IC.538 dt.6.1.08 with ticket numbers 2656292289 and 2656292316 respectively. The tickets were confirmed through the Air Inida Agency, Indo Foreign Travel Links (Pvt) Ltd., Nrangapuram, and Thalassery. On the date of journey, two boarding passes were issued by opposite parties at Calicut Airport. When they boarded the plane, the cabin crew refused seat for the minor child by saying that no seat was allotted to the minor child. When the complainant claimed for the minor’s seat by showing the ticket and boarding pass the crew told the complainant that only one seat was allotted to them. So the complainant and her minor child suffered severe mental pain and agony throughout the journey adjusting two persons in one seat. This was caused due to the deficient service of opposite party. So the complainant issued notice to opposite party claiming compensation for Rs.50, 000/-. But opposite party issued reply stating some lame excuses. Hence this complaint. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum, the opposite party appeared and filed version. The opposite party filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer and the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The opposite party admits that the complainant had purchased two economy class tickets for herself and her child for journey from Calicut to Dubai by flight IC.538 of 6th January 2008. On the date of journey, the complainant and her child reported for check-in the airport, they were offered with business class boarding pass with seat No.5 A, 5C, as a gesture of goodwill. After boarding the complainant had expressed her preference to travel along with her other know passenger in Economy class. Since the economy class was full with 126 passengers, it appears that the cabin crew would arrange only one seat next to the complainant’s relative to exchange seat and complied with the wish of complainant. The complainant willfully accepted the offer and traveled in Economy class adjacent to her relative, making slight adjustment. So there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration:- 1. Whether the Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try the case? 2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A7 and B1. Issue No.1 According to opposite party the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the cause of action has not arisen within the jurisdiction of the Forum. But according to the complainant even though the ticket was purchased from Dubai it were confirmed through the Air India agency, Indo Foreign Travel Links (Pvt) Ltd., Nrangapuram, Thalassery. As per the answer No.3 to the interrogatories served by the complainant, the opposite party answered that Indo Foreign Travel Link is an authorized agency of Indian Air lines and Air India at Kannur District. The opposite party again answered to the first interrogating that Air India is having an office at Kannur. The opposite party contended that flights operated by Indian Airlines cannot be booked from Kannur office of Air India. But the complainant contended that Air India and Indian Airlines are one and the same company. Opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove his contention. So we accept the contentions of complainant. In Venkatesh & others vs. Vishwanath & Others, the Hon’ble National Commission held that opposite party bank having branch office in Bagalkot, District Forum, Bagalkot had jurisdiction for adjudication. Which was reported in (2008) I CPJ 219(NC). So we are of the opinion that the opposite party has branch at Kannur and hence the Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case and hence issue No.1 is found infaovur of the complainant. Issue Nos. 2 to 4 The complainant’s further case is that she booked 2 tickets in IC 538 flight for herself and her son Shivang Manoj for her journey from Calicut to Dubai on 6.1.08 in Economy class and when they reached the Calicut Airport two boarding passess were issued to them and there after the cabin crew refused seat to minor child by saying that no seat was allotted to the minor child and hence the complainant was compelled to travel by sitting in one seat which caused physical and metal hardships to the complainant. In order to prove her case she was examined as PW1 and produced documents Exts.A1 to A7, such as ticket for herself and to her child, lawyer notice reply notice, boarding passes two in number and the birth certificate of the child. Opposite party had also produced Exts.B1, the list of passengers. The complainant had produced Ext.A1 and A2 tickets for her and the other one is for her child for traveling on 6.1.08 in Economy class. The same was also admitted by the opposite party. The opposite party further admits that she and her child were travelled in a single seat. Whatever may be the reason, it is true that the complainant had taken two tickets for which opposite party received consideration of Rs.23, 000/- and she used only one seat. In Ext.A4reply the opposite party admitted that at the time she reported, since the economy classes was full, she and her child were in voluntarily upgraded to travel in executive class and this was done as a gesture of goodwill. That is the opposite party admits that at the time of her reporting itself the economy class was full, even though she had booked for economy class. The question before the forum is that whether she was provided with two eats as booked by her, irrespective of the economy class or executive class. From the facts and circumstances of the case and from the admission of opposite party it is clear that she was not provided with two seats even though she had already paid for two seats. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency on the part of opposite party by providing one seat after receiving price of two seats. The opposite party had put forwarded another contention that, seats are not allocated to infants as per rules. But in this case the child accompanied with the complainant has 7 years of old as per Ext.A7. In answer to the interrogatories it is stated that as per the rules of Air India, an infant is a child up to the age of 2. So this contention cannot be taken into consideration. The opposite party is bound to provide seats for which they have already received consideration. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. So the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant and to refund the price of the ticket of the child alone. Since the complainant had already used her ticket i.e. Rs.10, 000/- along with Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to receive the same and hence the order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs. 10,000(Rupees Ten Thousand only) along with Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as compensation with Rs.1000/- as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer protection Act. Sd/-President Sd/- Member Sd/- Member. APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1 & 2.Tickets issued by OP A3.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A4.Reply A5 & 6. Boarding pass A7.Birth certificate of Shivang Manojkumar Exhibits for the opposite party: B1.Copy of passengers manifest Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
