KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.115/05
JUDGMENT DATED 10.1.2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
Rossy Yogannan
W/o Yohannan, Machampilly home -- APPELLANT
Viyyur, Thrissur.
(By Adv.P.J.Koshy)
Vs.
1. Badshah Travels,
Nattika, Thriprayar, Thrissur
Reptd. by its Proprietor.
2. Akbar Travels, -- RESPONDENTS
Kochi-16
Reptd. by its Manager in charge.
3. Air India Limited
Kochi-16
Reptd. by Managing Director.
(R2 by Adv.Kurian Vallamattam &
R3 by Adv.Joseph Markos & Ors.)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT
The appellant is the complainant in OP.814/02 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint stands dismissed.
2. It is the case of the complainant that she purchased the air ticket for the straight flight from Thiruvananthapuram to Riyadh on 6.8.02. She had to reach Riyadh to attend the delivery of her daughter. Although the amounts were entrusted much earlier the ticket was delivered on 5.8.02. Altogether she paid a sum of Rs.30,450/-. The complainant is from Thrissur. She reached the Airport at Thiruvananthapuram on 6.8.02 in time. It was found that the flight in the above sector was cancelled from 27.7.02 onwards itself. Thereafter, she contacted the third respondent, Air India office and ticket was arranged for next day from Thiruvananthapuram-Bombay, Bombay-Delhi, Delhi-Riyadh. She took the above ticket as she had no other go. She had to travel more; there was necessary to travel by direct flight. Further 6.8.02 was a Harthal day, and herself and her companion had to face much difficulties to get food and accommodation. She has claimed altogether a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation.
3. The first opposite party has contended that they in fact are only arranging visa stamping and it is for the above purpose that the complainant approached them. The opposite party only assisted the complainant to obtain the air ticket from the second opposite party which is an IATA approved agent. It was for stamping visa, and the ticket fare that the amounts were received. It is contended that the opposite party had informed the complainant about the Harthal. Only after getting report of confirmation from the second opposite party that ticket was handed over to the complainant on 5.8.02. The first opposite party has denied any liability. It is denied that the direct flights to Riyad to Thiruvananthapuram were cancelled from 27.7.02 onwards.
4. The second opposite party/travel agent remained ex-parte.
5. The third opposite party Air India has filed version contending that the first respondent is not a recognized travel agent and that Air India has got dealings with the second opposite party alone. It is pointed out that the ticket in question was issued to the second opposite party. It is stated that the ticket was issued on 22.7.02 through the second opposite party. On 23.7.02 itself the second opposite party was informed as to the cancellation of Thiruvananthapuram-Mumbai sector flights and the re-scheduling of flights. It is pointed out that the complainant has not contacted the third opposite party/third respondent.
6. Evidence adduced consisted of Exts. P1 to P8, R1 & R2.
7. The Forum has found that the first opposite party was not informed about the flights by the second opposite party. The contention of the third opposite party /Air India was upheld as the first opposite party is not an approved/recognized agent. It was also found that the complainant failed to get the ticket confirmed before her travel to Thiruvananthapuram. The Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that the respondents cannot be blamed as 6.8.02 happened to be a Harthal day.
8. We find that it stands proved that the complainant obtained the ticket from the first opposite party in view of Ext.P1 and P2 receipts for payment. Admittedly, the first opposite party is not an approved air travel agent. Evidently, the first opposite party is a sub- agent of the second opposite party, the IATA agent. The version of third opposite party that the fact of cancellation of direct flights was informed to the second opposite party stands not disproved. Hence, there is evident lapse on the part of the first and second opposite parties. The first opposite party cannot disclaim liability, as as per Ext.P1 and P2 receipts they have received the amounts, that included the ticket fare. Evidently, the flight on 6.8.02 for which the ticket was given was already cancelled since 23.7.02. Hence, the complainant had to face difficulties as she had travel all the way from Thiruvananthapuram to Riyad and Riyad to Thiruvananthapuram. It is pertinent to note that it is not disputed that the ticket it was given to the complainant by the first opposite party only on 5.8.02. Hence, there was no sufficient time for further confirmation.
9. In the circumstances, we find that there is evident deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite parties. We find that a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation would be reasonable as the complainant a lady was put to all the difficulties on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite parties.
10. In the circumstances, the first and second opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint. The first and second opposite parties will be jointly and severely liable. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% from 10.1.2011 the date of this order.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as above.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
