BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 244/2006 Filed on 30.08.2006

Dated : 15.05.2010

Complainants:

1. Mrs. Chand Begum residing at MRA-112, Kamalalayam-2, C.O Madhavan Road, Kunnukuzhy P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-37.

    

2. Khyrunnisa. A, residing at ..do.. ..do..

3. Rizwana Ghouse, residing at ..do.. ..do..

(By adv. K. Santhosh Kumar)

Opposite parties:

1. AIR DECCAN, represented by the Area Captain/Airport Manager, Air Deccan, Domestic Terminal I, Trivandrum Airport, Trivandrum.

    

2. Manager, Air Deccan, 35/2, Cunningham Road, Opposite Canara Bank, Bangalore-560 052.

(By adv. M. Nizamudeen)

This O.P having been heard on 16.04.2010, the Forum on 15.05.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

The pleadings in the complaint are the following: Complainants had booked air tickets to Chennai on 28.04.2006 for flight from Chennai to Thiruvananthapuram on 20.06.2006 by Air Deccan flight No. DN 719. The said tickets were confirmed on 28.04.2006 itself. The PNR Number was given as DA 04696374. the booking was done through the Thiruvananthapuram counter of Air Deccan. On 20^th June, after the baggage was checked at Chennai Airport, the complainants were told that their tickets were cancelled and hence they could not board the flight. The officials of the opposite party in Chennai insisted on the complainants for buying fresh tickets at the then prevailing rate if they wanted to board the flight. The opposite party’s staff hesitantly admitted that some mistakes had been made, probably at the Thiruvananthapuram Airport, but they took no steps to rectify them. For over two and a half hours the complainants were running from pillar to post, trying to get the matter sorted out. But the complainants could not travel by the said plane. At 5.30 on the same day the complainants met the Chennai Airport Manager, Mr. Elumalai and complained to him about the situation. He confirmed that our tickets were proper and that there was no justification for the inhuman treatment meted out to the three helpless women, one of whom was sick also. As a result of the above described gross deficiency of service the complainants had to return to Chennai City by taxi, stay there overnight in a tourist home and board the next day’s Indian Airlines Chennai-Trivandrum Flight (IC 589) after buying fresh tickets at higher rates. Due to the above the complainants had to suffer loss of money and time, besides mental agony, pain and trauma for no fault of theirs. Hence this complaint for redressal of their grievances.

Opposite parties 1 & 2 have filed a joint version contending as follows: That the complainant’s booking was a time hold booking. The complainant called the Call Centre of the opposite party airlines at 12:10 hours on 27.04.2006 and requested Ms. Umme Salma, the Call Centre Executive, for booking three tickets from Chennai to Trivandrum for 20.06.2006. It is needful to mention that it was only a telephonic call, no payment was made by the complainant at that time. Such type of bookings are valid only for 24 hours and accordingly the complainant was informed that the booking was made with a specific condition if the payment is made by the passenger within 24 hours and the ticket is collected from any counter of the airlines i.e till 12:10 hours on 28.04.2006, otherwise booking will be automatically cancelled by the computer system. The complainant did not approach any of the counter of the opposite party airlines within the time limit of 24 hours and make the payment and got the ticket. Therefore the said booking was automatically canceled 12:10 hours on 28.04.2006. That the complainants have suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. That the present complaint has been filed without any cause of action and the same is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed as such. That the entire ticketing and reservation system of the opposite party airlines is computerized and every telephonic conversation is recorded in the PNR transaction history of the passengers available on internet system which is an authentic record to prove any transaction. The booking of the complainants was made on 27.04.2006 at 12:10 hours without any payment subject to the condition they will make the payment by or before 12:10 hours on the next day, however, they did not make the payment and the booking was cancelled at 12.30 hours on 28.04.2006. That the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed.

On the part of the complainant, 2^nd complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P4. DW1 has been examined on behalf of opposite parties and Exts. D1 & D2 were marked.

From the contentions raised the issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether inspite of having valid tickets, the complainants were not allowed to travel?

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

3. Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint?

Points (i) to (iii):- The complainants have pleaded that they had booked air tickets on 28.04.2006 for the intended journey on 20.06.2006 from Chennai to Thiruvananthapuram and the said tickets were confirmed on 28.04.2006 itself. Complainants have produced Ext. P1 which is the booking receipt. At the outset itself, the aspect to be noted is that, the date of booking as per Ext. P1 is 27.04.2006 12:10 p.m. But the complainant has pleaded that the tickets were booked on 28.04.2006 and had confirmed on the same date itself. Ext. P1 produced by the complainants itself goes to prove that the date mentioned as date of booking in the complaint is different from the date mentioned in the document produced by the complainants themselves. Furthermore, the complainants have alleged that they have been issued with a ’confirmed’ status ticket but were not allowed to travel inspite of the same. Though the status of the tickets under the head “passenger details’ is described as confirmed, on the top of Ext. P1, the booking status has been mentioned as ’On hold till 28 April 12:10’. The opposite parties have contended that, the booking of the complainants were made on 27.04.2006 at 12:10 without any payment subject to the condition that they will make the payment by or before 12:10 hours on the next day and the booking was made through telephonic call on hold booking basis which was to be confirmed within 24 hours after making payment which the complainants never did. So the aspect to be considered is whether the complainants have made the necessary payments within the time limit.

At the time of cross examining PW1, the 2nd complainant had answered the question put forwarded by the opposite party as “ S¡u cash Bണ് ¨J¡T¤·Y®. P1- v Fl¢¨T¨iÆ¢k¤« cash received F¼® Fr¤Y¢i¢¶¤©Ù¡? (Q) It is not there(A). P1 Hy booking printout B¨X¼® dsi¤¼¤ (Q) I don’t know, I was given P1 when I paid the amount and I considered this as the receipt and ticket (A).” Ext. P1 is only page 1 of 2 of a print out generated on 28.04.2006, wherein the date of booking is clearly mentioned as 27-April-2006 12:10 P.M. The 2^nd page has not been produced. If at all the tickets were booked and confirmed on the very same day i.e; on 28.04.2006 as pleaded in the complaint, then why the complainants have not disputed the date of booking mentioned in Ext. P1 as 27-April-2006 is not clear. There is no whisper regarding the same in the complaint. The complainants have not furnished any records to prove that the complainants have paid the amount towards the ticket. When there is a specific indication as to ’ On hold till 28 April 12:10’, the burden is on the complainants to prove that they have complied the above condition within the time stipulated. The complainants have failed to furnish any documents or evidence to prove that they have paid Rs. 3,113.70 before 12:10 28^th April. In the absence of evidence to prove the same, this Forum comes to the conclusion that the complainants have miserably failed to establish their complaint with cogent evidence. Hence this Forum is left with no other option than to dismiss the complaint.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of May 2010.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 244/2006

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS :

PW1 - Khyrunnisa

II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Booking receipt dated 27.04.2006

P2 - Copy of advocate notice dated 30.06.2006.

P3 - Certificate issued from GPO, Tvpm evidencing receipt of the

advocate notice by the opposite party.

P4 - Postal receipt dated 03.07.2006

III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS :

DW1 - Abdul Hameed

IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of e-mail dated 30.01.2007

D2 - Copy of PNR transaction history.

PRESIDENT