D.O.F. 19.05.2007

                                                                                  D.O.O. 15.12.2009

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 15^th day of December, 2010.

C.C.No.115/2007

1.     K.L. Abdul Salam,

     S/o. Late K.C. Muhammed Kunhi,

     Advocate,

     “His Grace”, Muzhathadam Road,

      P.O. Civil Station, Kannur - 2.

2.  Maziya Abdul Salam,

     W/o. K.L. Abdul Salam,

     Document Writer,

     “His Grace”, Muzhathadam Road,                        :  Complainants

      P.O. Civil Station, Kannur - 2.

3.   Master Mohd Sayyed Qutub,

      S/o. K.L. Abdul Salam, Aged 11 years.

4.   Master Gulbudheen Ikhmathiar,

      S/o. K.L. Abdul Salam, Aged 11 years.

     Since No.3 and 4 are minors they are represented by their  

     Guardian K.L. Abdul Salam.

1.     The Manager,

Al-Hind Tours and Travels,

Malabar Tower, Thavakkara Road,

Kannur – 2.

(Rep. by Adv. P.S. Murali)                                     :  Opposite parties

    2.   The Manager,

Quatar Airways,

Mavoor Road, Kozhikode - 1.

O R D E R

Smt. K.P.Preethakumari, Member.

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

 Act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund ` 1,26.250  with ` 10,00,000 as compensation with cost.  

          The case of the complainants is that they have booked for Umra Visas and two way air tickets with opposite party 1 during March, 2005 with a condition to confirm the tickets at the first week of April and the routs of the complainant’s were intimated and confirmed as Cochin-Doha, Doha-Jiddah, Jiddah-Doha and Doha-Cochin to opposite party 1 and they issued tickets and Umra Visa stamping to travel only in the 3^rd week of April, 2005.  Evenafter the repeated requests, the tickets was received only on the date of travel on the way to Cochin and the complainants traveled on 24^th April, 2005.  In the ticket the status of the return ticket was under waiting list and the opposite party promised that the ticket would be confirmed after arrival at Doha from Jiddha.  As per the schedule after performing Umra complainant’s reached at Doha and approached the office of opposite party 2 at Sanai, Doha for re-confirmation, it was told that the return ticket will be O.K. on 1^st June, 2005 for the journey on 2^nd due to the tight booking of the ticket.  So the complainant’s personally contacted the head office of opposite party 2 at Doha City and branch office at Sanai to issue confirmation print since the visas of the complainants will expire on 02.06.2005.  Eventhough the opposite parties told that it could be issued only on 01.06.2005, on the morning of 01.06.2005, on enquiry opposite party 2 informed the complainants that the names of the complainants from the waiting list were deleted due to the excess of booking on 02.06.2005 and hence they are not able to travel on that day.  So the complainants met with huge mental agony due to the expiry of visas and non-availability of return tickets.  The officials from opposite party 2 informed the complainant that the ticket will be available only during the end of July 2005 and the complainants has to pay a sum of ` 10,000 per day being the fine of stay of excess days, if the complainants stayed there after expiry of visa.  So the friends and relatives intervened and as per their advice the complainants decided to start journey by catching fresh ticket and complainants returned from Doha by Air India flight due to the restless effort of his friends and relatives in Doha and they had paid ` 50,000 for the air ticket.

          The opposite party 2 issued return ticket before 60 days of journey under waiting list with the promise and assurance that it will be confirmed after arrival at Doha.  But they cheated the complainants by selling fresh tickets to some others without confirming the waiting list.  After arrival at native place, the complainants filed applications for refund of return ticket amount to opposite party 1 on 07.06.2005. But they are not ready for the refund.  Hence the complaint issued notices to opposite parties.  But they replied stating untenable contentions.  Hence this complaint. 

Upon receiving the notices from the Forum, both the opposite parties appeared and filed their versions.

          The opposite party 1 filed version contending that the complainants were not Umra pilgrims and were traveling on their own as per their schedule.  The complainants approached opposite party 1 only for purchasing up and down tickets and visa stamping.   They wanted to travel Jiddah via Doha and wanted to issue split up tickets.  The complainants had relatives in Doha who had arranged for the Doha visa and they went for Umra from Doha.  At the time of issuing tickets the status of onward tickets were O.K., but the return tickets were only open tickets and the opposite party 1 had never promise that they would make arrangements to get return tickets okeyed.  The complainants wanted a direct return ticket from Jeddah to Cochin and accordingly open tickets were issued.  The first complainant specifically informed that as soon as they reached Jeddah, they will have to reconfirm tickets from there, otherwise it will not be possible for them to travel in any specified dates desired by them and is the general rule with air travel business.   The liability of the complainants to return to Cochin with the tickets issued by the opposite party 1 could only be due to their default. It is not clear as to how the complainants could go to Quatar from Jeddah as the return ticket issued to them were direct Jeddah-Cochin tickets.  If the complainants had travelled to Doha from Jeddah using the return tickets issued by opposite party 1 only the air line is responsible for that.  According to opposite party 1, they had arranged a confirmed onward tickets for the complainants and had reached their destination as per the schedule.  The opposite party 1 cannot be blamed, if the complainants failed to reconfirm the tickets from Jeddah or if they travelled to Doha from Jeddah according to their plan.  So the opposite party 1 is not liable to pay any compensation and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party 1 and hence the complaint against opposite party 1 is liable to be dismissed.

          The opposite party 2 also filed version contending that the claim is barred by limitation.  The opposite party 2 further contended that they have no knowledge about the date of boarding and confirmation of the tickets. The opposite party 2 denied the allegation that at Sanai, the responsible persons of the opposite party 2 promised that the status of the tickets will be okayed on 01.06.2005 for the journey on 02.06.2005.  the opposite party 2 is not responsible for any inconvenience caused to the complainants. The return tickets were only open tickets and an open ticket only enable the ticket holder to undertake journey in the open sector at any stage during a given period specified in the ticket subject to the availability of seat in the class of carriage for which said ticket is held by the passenger.  As far as opposite party 2 is concerned they had provided facility for travel as per the confirmed outbound booking for the complainants and in respect of the open sector, the opposite party 2 was not able to provide seats for travel on the dates on which the complainants wished to travel because of the non-availability of seats in the class of cabin for which the claimant held tickets.  The complainants ought to have sought to confirm their reservation for the open sectors and without having done, they were unable to travel on the dates desired by them.  The complainant who is eminently educated professional ought to have complied with the basic rule of travel.  The entire transaction regarding the deliberation and purchase of ticket was between complainant and opposite party 1. The opposite party 2 cannot be blamed for being unable to convert the open ticket into a confirmed reservation on the date required by the complainant; because at the time the complainant sought to confirm reservation, there were no longer any seats available in the class of cabin for which the complainants held tickets.  There is no deficiency of service on the party of opposite party 2 and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.     Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2.     Whether there is any deficiency of service on the party of opposite parties?

3.     Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief?

4.     Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1, DW2 and Exts. A1 to A10, B1, B2  and B2(a).

Issue No.1  :

          The opposite party No.2 contended that the complaint is barred by limitation, since the alleged cause of action for the complaint arose on 01.06.2005 and the complaint was filed after 01.06.2007, and the delay was also not explained.   But from the face of the complaint filed before the Forum, it is seen that the complaint was received on 19.05.2007.  It is true that the cause of action for the complaint arise on 02.06.2005 and hence the complaint has to be filed within 02.06.2007.  The face of the complaint before the Forum shows that the complaint was filed on 19.05.2007, which is within the prescribed period of limitation.  Moreover, the DW1 deposed that “19.05.2007 \mWv ^b sNb-XXv F¶v court recordþ ImWp-¶Xv icn-bmWv.  Delay  D­v F¶ hmZT ]n³h-en-¡p-¶p”.  So the opposite party 2 withdrawn the averment that the complaint was filed after the prescribed period.  So we hold the view that the complaint is filed within time and is not barred by limitation and hence issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.2 to 4  :

          The further case of the complainant is that the complainants have suffered both financial, physical and mental hardships due to the non-confirmation and cancellation of the air ticket by opposite party 2 on 02.06.2005 for traveling from Doha to Cochin and due to non-refund of the price of the ticket.  In order to prove this case the 1^st complainant was examined as PW1 and produced documents such as lawyer notice dated 12.05.2006, reply notice dated 08.11.2006 and 16.06.2006, despatch notice dated 07.10.2006, four airtickets in original and its refund application, booking list in original, computer print out of status of airticket.  In order to disprove the case opposite parties are also examined as DW1 and DW2 and documents such as authorization letter, PNR records and expansion of PNR records are also produced.

          In order to answer the issue No.2, the following questions has to be answered first.   They are whether there is any laches on the part of the complainant requesting for confirmation?  Whether the tickets were non-stop over tickets?  And whether the opposite party 2 had rightly rejected the request for refund?.  The opposite parties admits that the complainants have a waiting list tickets for their return journey from Doha to Cochin on 02.06.2005 and has not used this ticket for this journey.  But the both opposite parties contended that the above stated tickets are open tickets and it has to be confirmed or okayed by complainants for the date of their journey, and the complainant has not taken any steps for the same.  But according to the complainants they have booked for journey during April, 2005 before 60 days of intended journey and had received a ticket having in the waiting list and had approached the other of opposite party 2 at Sanai, and they promised that the ticket will be okayed on 02.06.2005.  But the opposite party 2 denied this by saying that they have never made such promise.  But the reservation Supervisor of opposite party 2 ie DW2 deposed that “waiting list full Bbn Ign-ªm   request sImSp-¯m ImWn-Ã.  kvIqÄ Xpd-¡p¶ ka-b-am-bXp sIm­v full Bbn-cn-¡-WT. Moreover, the DW1 deposed that “R§Ä A\p-h-Zn-¨p. Sn¡-än Xs¶ return date Pq¬ 2 F¶p ImWm-T.  AXp-sIm­v  open ticket BsWt¶m request sImSp-¯nà Ft¶m ]d-bm³ Ign-bn-Ã. The DW2 further deposed that “   Sn¡-än\v open ticket F¶p ]d-bn-Ã.  open ticket BWv F¶p ]d-bp-¶Xv sXäm-Wv. So it is clear that the alleged ticket is not an open ticket. The DW2 who is responsible person of opposite party 2 deposed that “Ticket confirmation\v Officeþ _Ôs¸«n-cp-t¶m-sb-¶-dn-bn-Ã.  The very case of the complainants is that they have came to know that the waiting list tickets of the alleged tickets were cancelled by opposite party on 1^st June, 2005 and on that day itself his friends and relatives arranged to make available for the return journey on 2^nd June, 2005 itself and on the same day they reached at Cochin.  The opposite parties also admits that they were travelled on the same day. So from this circumstances itself it is sure that complainants came to know about the cancellation of their tickets, when he had contacted opposite party 2 for confirmation on 01.06.2005.  So the contention of opposite parties that the complainants have  never contacted opposite party 2 at Sanai is made only for the purpose of the case.  Above all the complainant is an eminently educated professional and he is well aware of all the consequences that he and his family would have suffer, if he has not taken steps to confirm the ticket and hence there is no need to disbelieve the words of the complainant that he had approached the 2^nd opposite party’s head quarter at Sanai for reconfirmation.  So we hold the view that the opposite parties had not confirmed that the alleged ticket, eventhough he had requested for confirmation.

          The another question to be answered is that whether the ticket issued to the complainants were non-stop over ticket?  The opposite parties contended that the complainants have booked for return journey as per A5 to A8 tickets from direct Jeddah to Cochin.  The above tickets shows that the date of journey were Kochi, 24^th April, Doha, 21^st May, Jeddah, 1^st June and Doha to Kochi, 2^nd June.   But the complainant admitted that “Pn±-bn \n¶v tZml-bn-te¡v bm{X sNb-XXv opposite party 1 issue sNbvX Sn¡-än-em-Wv.  21.05.2005\v seat vacancy D­m-b-Xp-sIm-­mWv  ticket ok B¡n \ÂIn-b-Xv.  This shows that the complainants have travelled from Jeddah to Doha on 21.05.2005 with the ticket which is said to be non-stop over ticket.  So it is clear that opposite party 2 himself had allowed the complainants to travel from Jeddah to Doha by using the ticket, eventhough the ticket is on 01.06.2005.  But DW1 deposed that “stop over A\p-h-Zn-¡m³ Imc-WT airline\v am{Xta Ad-nbq. Stop over A\p-h-Zn-¡m³ ]äm¯ caseþ stop over A\p-h-Zn-¡-Wtam th­tbm F¶p Xocp-am-\n-¡p-¶Xv airline BWv.  So from the above deposition it is clear that the opposite party 2 has discretionary power to allow stop over.  Moreover according to opposite party 2 “ticket ]cn-tim-[n-¨m non-stop over ticket BWv F¶v a\-Ên-em-hp-¶Xv destinationsâ sideþ Hcp ‘X’amÀ¡v D­v.”  But they have not produced any supporting documents to prove that the tickets having ‘X’ marks on the side of destination and before fair calculations is non-stop over ticket.  The opposite party had allowed the complainants to travel from Jeddah to Doha using these tickets even before 10 days of intended journey.  The DW1 deposed that “stop over Ds­-¦n fare hy-X-ym-k-ap-­v. The DW2 also deposed that “Hcp cmPy-¯v Cd§n ]n¶oSv AhnsS \n¶v hcp-¶-XpT non-stop over basisþ hcp-¶-XpT X½n ticket fare hy-X-y-kvX-am-Wv. Stop over FSp¯p hcp¶ Sn¡-än\v henb hy-X-ym-kT D­m-Ip-T.”  But the opposite parties have not produced any documents to show that the complainant has paid only for non-stop over tickets.  Besides this the reason shown for deleting the names of the complainants from the waiting list is due to overbooking and not the reason that he had already taken stopover on a non-stop over ticket.  It is also admitted that the complainants were already booked tickets before 60 days of their journey and the airlines has discretionary power to convert the ticket into stop over.  Above all the opposite parties have no pleadings either in their version or in their affidavits about the stop over issue and this contention is put forwarded only as after thought.  So we hold the view that the complainants have taken stop over as per the tickets issued by opposite party 2 and the alleged tickets from Jeddah to Doha were stop over tickets.

          Yet another point to be decided is whether the opposite party 2 had rightly rejected the request for refund.  It is an admitted fact that the complainants have not used the tickets issued by opposite party 1 for their travel from Doha to Cochin on 02.06.2005 and purchased a new ticket for their journey since their waiting list tickets were cancelled due to overbooking.  From the earlier discussion it is found that the complainants have contacted opposite party 2 for re-confirmation of tickets from Sanai office of opposite party 2 and they have taken stop over as per the tickets issued by the opposite party 2 from Doha to Cochin Sector by stop over tickets.  Opposite party 2 failed to reconfirm the ticket from Doha – Cochin sector of complainants eventhough he had approached for confirmation, and hence there is deficiency on the part of opposite party 2 in confirming the alleged ticket and hence this will came under the head ‘involuntary refunds’ and hence the complainants are entitled to get refund of ticket fare and hence the rejection of the refund application is also not proper.  So there is deficiency on the part of opposite party 2 in giving the amount by refund to the complainants.  So the opposite party 2 is liable to compensate the complaint.  Opposite party 1 is exonerated from liability, since it is found that opposite party 1 is acted their part promptly.

Regarding the amount to be refunded, the complainant claimed     ` 72,750 being the half of amount paid by the complainant for ticket and ` 50,000 being the amount paid for fresh ticket with 10 lakhs as compensation and cost.  But it is found that the complainant had already used all the other sector except Doha-Cochin.  As per the rules of Quatar Airways, the complainant is entitled to get the amount higher of the one way fare from point to interruption to destination, if a portion of the ticket has been used and hence the complainant is entitled to get the actual fare paid by the complainants for their ticket to travel from Doha to Cochin.  But there is no amount mentioned anywhere in the pleadings of both parties.  But the complainant claimed ` 50,000 as the fare paid for them to travel from Doha to Cochin on 02.06.2005.  So we assess the fare for the alleged ticket paid by the complainants as ` 50,000 and hence the opposite party 2 is liable to refund ` 50,000 as the fare of the alleged ticket.  The complainant is not entitled to get ` 50,000 as fare for ticket through which they travelled from Doha to Cochin on 02.06.2005.  It is true that the complainants have suffered same mental as well as physical hardships due to the act of opposite party 2 for which we assess ` 15,000 as compensation and the complainant is also entitled to get ` 10,000 as cost of this complaint and order passed accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party 2 to refund ` 50,000 (Rupees Fifth Thousand only) as fare of the alleged tickets along with ` 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as compensation with ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.    Otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

Dated this the 15^th day of  December, 2010. 

                           Sd/-                    Sd/-                     Sd/-

President              Member               Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.             Copy of Lawyer notice dated 12.05.2006.

A2.             Copy of Lawyer notice issued by 1^st OP dated 08.11.2006.

A3.             Copy of lawyer notice issued by the 2^nd OP dated 16.06.2006.

A4.             Letter of 1^st OP dated 07.10.2006.

A5 to A8.   Original Air Tickets.

A8(a)& (b). Refund Application / Authority.

A9.            Original of booking list.

A10.          Original ticket confirmation list dated 23.04.2005.

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1.    Letter of Autorisation dated 06.02.2009

B2.    True copy of the PNR dated 01.06.2005.

B2(a) True translation of the PNR.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.   Complainant.

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1.  V.J. Francis.

DW2.  Shiyas Abdul Razak.

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT