KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 466/2004
JUDGMENT DATED: 5/8/2011
PRESENT:
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT
Mrs. Shamerien Rajendran
44/2854 B, Konthuruthy Lane,
Deshabhimani Road, Kaloor, Kochi.
(Rep. by Advs. Sri. S. Sreekumar & Sri. P.K. Soyuz)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1. Air India Ltd. Hansalaya Building,
5th Floor, 15 Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi – 110 001, rep. by its Chairman.
2. V. Gaikwad, Duty Officer,
Air India, Mumbai.
3. The Regional Manager,
Air India, M.G. Road, Ernakulam.
4. Indo-World Tours & Travels,
39/4154, Heera House,
Opp. Deepa Theatre, Ravipuram.
M.G. Road, Cochin – 682 016
Rep. by its Manager.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Joseph Markos & Others)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The complainant in O.P. 338/03 before CDRF, Ernakulam is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below as per the order dated 25-5-2004.
2. The case of the appellant/complainant was that she had booked an Air Ticket from Mumbai to Kochi for her journey on 1-5-04 at 2.45 hours and when she went to the Mumbai International AirPort for her journey, the officials of the checking counter asked her to have the excess baggage paid separately and that after remitting the baggage charges, when she came to the counter for her journey, the officials did not permit her to travel. alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with 18% interest for the deficiency in service, Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and hardships, Rs. 50,000/- towards expenses for return journey and
Rs. 5,000/- as cost.
3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed version wherein they submitted that the stipulated check in time was 3 hours before the scheduled departure and that the complainant wanted her son also to travel in the same flight. As the son had no confirmed flight ticket the opposite parties denied the request and the complainant decided to travel alone. However, the complainant had 3 hand bags with her and she was asked to have one bag with her and leave the other two bags with her son. The Journey was allowed. But the bag was not properly packed and hence she was not permitted to travel with the disputed hand bag. Pleading that there was no deficiency of service, the opposite parties 1 to 3 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A10 on her side. On the side of opposite parties Exts. B1 to B4 were marked.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued before us that the order of the forum below in dismissing the complainant was without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is her very case that the complainant had booked the excess baggage separately and that the story of 3 bags etc. were cooked up by the opposite parties to circumvent the situation. It is argued that there is sufficient proof to find that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The learned counsel submitted before us that there was excess booking by the opposite parties and it was due to that reason that they tried to avoid the complainant and her son by raising one or other objection. It is further submitted that even the booking amount was not returned to the complainant by the opposite parties. Canvassing for the Position that the Forum below had gone wrong in dismissing the complaint, the learned counsel submitted before us that the appeal is liable to be allowed and an order be passed directing the opposite parties to pay the amounts prayed for in the complaint.
7. On other hand, the findings and conclusions were supported by the learned counsel who appeared for the respondents 1 to 3. It is argued that it was due to the default of the complainant that she could not travel on the appointed date and that it was due to the fact that the complainant was not prepared to leave the improperly packed bag to her son that she could not travel. The learned counsel submitted that usually there will be a percentage of over booking by each flight and the opposite parties had no intention to deny the journey of the complainant who had a confirmed ticket.
8. On hearing the respective counsels and also on going through the records we find that as per the Ext. A1 the complainant had a ticket for her journey. The appellants argued that the complainant was carrying a bag that was not properly packed and due to that reason the complainant was denied the journey. As per Ext. A10, it is found that the opposite parties had expressed their apologies. It was also stated that an enquiry about the matter would be conducted. As per the Ext. B3 they have informed the Under Secretary to Ministry of Civil Aviation that it was due to the reason stated above that the complainant could not be permitted to travel. Any how it is the admitted fact that the complainant did not travel on the appointed date. It is also found that no refund was made to the complainant. We find that it was not proper on the side of the opposite parties is not refunding the ticket charges though they would argue that the complainant ought to have made a request to that effect and had surrendered the original ticket. It seems that the complainant has produced the ticket before the Forum along with the complaint. In the said circumstance, the opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to refund the value of the ticket amounting to Rs. 4,490/- with 6% interest from 1-5-2003 till date of the payment. The appellant/complainant is also entitled to cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties 1 to 3.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, thereby the respondents/opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to refund Rs.4,490/- with 6% interest from 1-5-2003 till the date of payment with cost of Rs.2,000/-.
The office is directed to send back the LCR to the forum below along with the copy of this judgment.
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
DA
