BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE                        

Dated this the 2^nd March 2017

PRESENT

   SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                  : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.151/2013

(Admitted on 24.05.2013)

Mr. Nischal Shetty,

Rukuma Vittal Nivas,

Amai, Perne Post,

Bantwala Taluk, Mangalore, D.K.

                                                             ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri HKB)

VERSUS

1. Manager,

    Multi Link

    MOS Utility Pvt, Ltd,

    Orbit Industrial Estate,

    Opp. Tanjent show room,

    Mind space, Malad (w)

    Mumbai   40069.

    Maharashtra (India)

2. Manager,

    UNIBCO International travels,

    1^st Floor, Shivabagh building,

    Kadri, Mangalore  575002.

3. Proprietor,

    Sanidya Enterprises,

    Cell Planet, Opp Bus Stand,

    Main Road, Mani, Bantwala Taluk, D.K.

                                                                         …..........OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Opposite Party No.1: served)

 (Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: Sri PSR)

 (Opposite Party No.3: Exparte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainant claims on 09.01.2013 he booked indigo flight ticket to travel from Mumbai to Bhubaneshwar on 5.2.2013 as well as a return ticket from Bhubaneswar to Mumbai on 7.2.2013 through opposite party No.1.  He booked the ticket in Saniday Enterprises i.e. opposite party No.3 that franchise i.e. opposite party No.2  a distributor of opposite party No.1 in Mangalore by paying Rs.9,893/.  On 4.2.2013 complainant wanted to change destination of return ticket to Mangalore instead of Bombay and informed the matter to opposite party No.1 as per request query was sent to opposite party No.1.  The complainant to his utter shock opposite party No.1 instead of changing the destination cancelled the ticket booked by complainant and refunded the amount.    When opposite party No.3 was contacted he was informed that they sent query to opposite party No.1 to change the destination as required by the complainant.   As such it is negligence on the part of opposite party No.1.  The complainant require to attend an important function in Bhubaneshwar on 6.2.2013 again directly booked a ticket to Bhubaneshwar by paying Rs.13,741/ in the same flight which is costlier than the earlier ticket cancelled.  One which he suffered due to negligence on the part of opposite party No.1 and No.2.   He also claims the legal notice sent by registered and unanswered and opposite party No.2 refused to receive the notice.  Hence seeks the relief claimed in the complaint.

II.     Opposite party No.1 despite serve of notice did not appear.  Opposite party No.2 on entering appearance filed written version.   They styled as written statement filed under VIII Rule I of Civil Procedure Code 1908 on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.   In fact this statement has more than one surprise element.  Almost in respect of every para from para No.4 of the complaint the first sentence of the corresponding para in the written statement states as denied the first sentence of the complaint.  Then in every para the statements made in the complaint are simply repeated.  Hence in our view these statements amounts to admissions of complaint statements made in the complaint.  The scanned copy of the written statement is attached to this order as an annexure.

2.     Hence we are not going to repeat the written version of this opposite party No.2 except mentioning that the last portion of the written version seeks dismissal of the complaint as no demerits.

3.  In support of the above complaint complainant Mr. Nischal Shetty filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C5 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties not filed affidavit evidence and not produced any documents.

III.    In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

      The learned counsels for complainant filed notes of argument. Opposite parties not filed notes of argument hence taken as nil.   We have considered entire case file on record tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties.  Our findings on the points are as under are as follows

               Point No.  (i): Affirmative

              Point No.  (ii): Affirmative

              Point No. (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i):   The complainant booking of the air ticket mentioned in the complaint is not disputed by contesting opposite party No.2.  On a query of complainant for changing the return destination, the ticket was cancelled by opposite party No.3 contrary to the instructions of opposite party No.1 to change the destination of return ticket of the complainant.   This was disputed by opposite party No.2 in the written version.   Hence there is a dispute between the parties the consumer the complainant and the opposite parties is the service providers as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act.  Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINTS No. (ii):      Ex.C1 is the flight ticket booked by complainant through opposite party No.3 and the amount paid is shown as Rs.9,892.70.   Ex.C2 is intimation given by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.3 to consider the request for change of the destination.  Intimation by opposite party No.3 for changing the destination.  Ex.C3 is ticket booked on journey on ticket purchase for journey on 5^th February along with the return ticket of 7^th February for Rs.13,741/.   Ex.C2 the second sheet mentions about the refund of Rs. 8664.50 and the first part of Ex.C2 mentions cancellation of the ticket on 4^th February at 4.41 hrs. Even though this email there is specific mention made highlighting the change request but it was cancelled.  From Ex.C2 itself it is clear even though opposite party No.3 intimated opposite party No.1 to change destination request booking was cancelled and Ex.C3 the complainant was made to buy fresh ticket by paying Rs.13,741/.   Hence there deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and No.2 is established. 

2.     Ex.C5 is a letter addressed by Sanidya Tours and Travels i.e. opposite party No.3 is writing by opposite party No.1 to complainant mentioned that he has informed opposite party No.1 and No.2 to change the destination by giving phone number of the complainant for change in destination but instead of changing destination cancelled the ticket. Thus it is clear the responsibility for cancelling the flight ticket instead of changing destination squarely lies on opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2.  In fact the ticket purchased by complainant as per Ex.C1 has two parts first one journey from Mumbai to Bhubaneshwar on 5.2.2013 and second part being return journey from Bhubaneshwar to Mumbai on 7^th February 2013.   There is no reason assigned by opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 for cancelling the air ticket instead of changing destination.

3.     In the circumstances opposite party No.3 in our view cannot be held responsibility for the negligence on the part of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 in cancelling air ticket of complainant and forcing him to buy fresh air ticket for the same journey by paying higher amount as per Ex.C3.  Hence we answer point No.2 in the affirmative against opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2.

4.     As to compensation payment the complainant is forced to spend an additional amount of Rs.5,956/ for the same journey due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and No.2.   As such apart from ordering refund payment to the complainant towards mental agony and legal notice expenses in our view ordering a compensation of Rs.12,000/ and cost with advocate fee fixed at Rs.5,000/ is just and proper.

POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order

ORDER

     The complaint is allowed with cost.   Opposite party No.1 and No.2 are directed to pay Rs.5,956/ (Rupees Five thousand Nine hundred Fifty Six only) with future interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of legal notice i.e. 18.02.2013 till the date of payment.

2.     Opposite party No.1 and No.2 shall also pay Rs.12,000/ (Rupees Twelve thousand only) as compensation to complainant.

3.    Advocate fee fixed at Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five thousand only)

4.     Complaint against opposite party No.3 is dismissed.

5.     Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

      Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 8 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 02^nd March 2017)

             MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT

    (T.C. RAJASHEKAR)                           (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum                    D.K. District Consumer Forum

 Additional Bench, Mangalore                      Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Nischal Shetty

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: Copy of the flight ticket dated 05.02.2013

Ex.C2: Copy of the email page

Ex.C3: Copy of the flight ticket dated 06.02.2013

Ex.C4: RPAD and endorsement

Ex.C5: Reply

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1  Nil

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Dated: 2.03.2017                                      PRESIDENT