Common Order in Appeal NoS.1003/2001 and 188/02

JUDGMENT DATED: 3.4.08

Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.No.499/99

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

SMT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN          : MEMBER

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,                            : MEMBER

Appeal No.1003/01

M/s Riya  Travels & Tours (Pvt.)Ltd.,              : APPELLANT

Duly represented by its Branch Manager,

Samarias Builidngs,

P.M.G., Trivandrum -4.

(By Adv.P.Krishnankutty Nair)

                 Vs.

1. Arun Sasidharan,

    S/o V.Sasidharan,                                    :  RESPONDENTS

    Syamal Mandiram, 

    Residency Road, Kollam.

2. V.Sasidharan,

    F/o Arun Sasidharan,

     --do—

(By Adv.A.Abdul Kharim counsel for R1 and R2)

3. Indian Airlines- represented by its Manager,

    LMS Junction,  Palayam,

   Thiruvananthapuram.

4. M/s AERO FLOAT G.S.A.Cosy Travels,

    Official Agents of

    M/s AERO FLOAT T,C.15/180,

    Channankara Buildings,

    Althara Jn. Vellayambalam, Tvpm.

    (By Adv.Mridul John Mathew counsel for 4^th respondent)

Appeal No.188/02

 M/s Cozy Travels, PSA Aerofloat,                        :APPELLANT

 T,C.15/180,

 Channankara Buildings,

 Althara Jn., Thiruvananthpauram-10.

  Represented by its Manager.

(By Adv.Mridul John Mathew)

                 Vs.

1. Arun Sasidharan,

    S/o V.Sasidharan,

    Syamal Mandiram,

    Residency Road,

    Kollam.

2. V.Sasidharan,

    F/o Arun Sasidharan,                                         : RESPONDENTS

     --do—

3. Indian Airlines-

    represented by its Manager,

    LMS Junction,

    Palayam, 

    Thiruvananthapura

4. Riya Travels, represented by its Manager,

    P.M.G.Junction, Thiruvananthpuram.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

          1. The appellant in A.1003/01 is the 3^rd opposite party and the appellant in Appeal 188/02 is the 2^nd opposite party in OP 499/99 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthpauram.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.59300/- with 16.5% future interest towards compensation and Rs.1500 towards cost.

          2. The above order is challenged herein by both the opposite parties in separate appeals filed.

          3. The case of the complainants  who are the father and son is that the 1^st complainant/son who was a medical student at University of Simperopool in Ukrain had been to his  native place on vacation and had to reach back before 2.9.99.  He had booked the flight ticket with the 3^rd opposite party travel agent and obtained the ticket from the 2^nd opposite party G.S.A of Aero Float for travel on 31.8.99 by Indian Airline from Thiruvananthpauram to Mali and  by Aero Flot Flight from Mali to Moscow and from Moscow to Simperopool..  He boarded  flight in time but he was asked to deboard as he was informed that the  connecting flight from Mali is not operating.  According to him there was flight on the particular day from Mali to Moscow.  Hence according to the complainant it was on account of the indiscretion on the part of the Indian Airlines authorities that he was asked to deboard.  According to him his visa expired on 1.9.99 and hence he had to travel to Delhi to get the visa renewed and then he proceeded to Ukraine.  He lost classes upto 9^th September 1999 on which date only he could reach  Simperopool.  He has alleged that all the  opposite parties are responsible for the incidents and has sought for compensation of Rs.225800/- under the different heads.

          4. 1^st opposite party the Indian Airlines has filed version pointing out that the 1^st complainant had to be deboarded as there was no sufficient time for him to get down from the flight, collect the luggage and board the Aero Flot Flight at Mali; and that was the reason why he was asked to be  off loaded.  It is mentioned that the flight from Thiruvananthpauram  reaches Mali only at 1.40pm whereas Aero Flot flight to Moscow would take off from Mali at 2.10pm ie  within 30 minutes. The above time is not adequate to deboard, collect the luggage and board the flight.  Unless the person was deboarded he would be stranded at Mali and the same would have resulted in a lot of problems as he had no visa to stay  at Mali.

          5.The 2^nd  opposite party,  GSA of Aero Flot has alleged that the  fault was that of the 3^rd opposite party travel agent as  it was he who should have ascertained the timings and details.  It is also pointed that the allegations in the complaint are against 1^st opposite party and hence the  2^nd opposite party cannot be burdened with liability.  The 3^rd opposite party has contended that there was no reason for offloading the passenger  by the  Indian Airelines.  Aero Flot flight started in time and took off in time on the particular day at Mali.  They have alleged deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

          6. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, 2^nd complainant, DW1 is the Manager, Indian Airlines and DW2 the Manager of the 3^rd opposite party and Exts.P1 to P7 and D1.

          7. The Forum found that the fault is squarely on the part of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties as it is the ticket of the 2^nd opposite party that has been purchased by the 1^st complainant.  The Forum held that it is the responsibility of the 2^nd opposite party to see that the passenger who purchased ticket of the 2^nd opposite party is properly provided with the flight facilities.

          We find that ticket Ext.D1 letter of the Aeroflot to the 1^st opposite party directs 1^st opposite party not to permit passengers to board Indian Airlines flight as they would not be able to provide connection flight for passengers from Thiruvananthpauram to Moscow due to a very short time between the landing of the Indian  Airline flight and take off of the Aero Flot flight.  As held by the  Forum the prime responsibility in this regard is that of  Aeroflot whose agent is the 2^nd opposite party.  The contention of the appellant in Appeal 188/02 that allegations in the complaint is against 1^st opposite  party and hence the 2^nd opposite party cannot be held liable and that 2^nd opposite party/appellant is bound to answer only the allegations made in the complaint, we find, are of a hyper technical nature when the parties have adduced evidence and the parties are aware of the contentions.  Further it is mentioned in the complaint itself that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party are also legally liable.  In the circumstance and considering the evidence adduced in the matter and in the absence any patent illegality in the finding of the Forum before  which the evidence was adduced we find no reason to interfere.  The order of the Forum is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed.