CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 103/10
Wednesday the 29th day of February, 2012
Petitioners : M.S.Chandrasekharan Nair,
Nalanda, Kumaranelloor PO,
Kottayam Dist.
(Adv. Anupa Das)
Vs.
Opposite party : Akbar Travels of India(P)Ltd.,
Geetha Trade Center,
M.C.Road, Nagambadom
Kottayam.Rep.by Branch Manager
2) Akbar Travels of India(P)Ltd
Akbar Bhavan 69-71,
Janjikar Street, Near Crawford Market
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 003 Rep.by its
Chairman.
(Adv.Avaneesh V.N)
3) Jet Air Ways(India)Ltd.
S.M.Center,
Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri East,
Mumbair, Maharashtra Rep.by
Naresh Goyal,
Presidient and Chairman.
(Adv.Dr.V.T.Rejimon)
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Case of the petitioner filed, on 25/03/10, is as follows:
Petitioner booked airline ticket from 2nd opposite party through 1st opposite party for his journey from Cochin to Atlanta via Mumbai, Amsterdam and Netherlands in the flight of 3rd opposite party. 1st opposite party arranged ticket from Kochi to Mumbai on 9/9/09. Flight departure was at 4.05 pm and was expected to reach Mumbai by 5.45 pm. Connection flight from Mumbai to Amsterdam was at around 11.55pm. Petitioner got assurance from 3rd opposite party for his ticket and he waited there. At about 10 am, petitioner enquired about the flight in office of 3rd opposite party. 3rd opposite party misbehaved to the petitioner and told that they were on strike. Inorder to catch the international flight from Mumbai, which was left hardly 15 hours, petitioner begged the 3rd opposite party for alternate arrangement. Petitioner availed the service of another flight for Rs. 7628/-. According to the petitioner he was forced to avail the service of spice jet with huge ticket fare. Petitioner states that act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service so, he prays for a direction to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings.
1st and 2nd opposite party filed joint version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to 1st opposite party they confirmed the ticket of the petitioner and handed over it to the petitioner. Petitioner purchased the ticket on 14/7/09 at the lowest price of Rs.2629/-. Petitioner went to the airport on 9/9/09 early morning. He was intimated that pilots of Jet Airways started their strike and some flights were cancelled. So, petitioner insisted for alternative remedy and that was arranged. Petitioner purchased ticket from spice jet scheduled at 11 am on 9/9/09. Actually the ticket was for the flight at 4 pm but the petitioner was not waited till 4’O clock. Petitioner contacted the 1st opposite party for return of amount. 1st opposite party, even though not liable to repay the amount, considering that petitioner being a regular customer, refunded the ticket amount on 3/12/09 and petitioner acknowledged the same. According to the 1st and 2nd opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of petition with their costs.
3rd opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Petitioner is not a consumer. Petitioner cancelled his ticket and claimed refund and the total air fare was refunded. Petitioner cancelled ticket on 9/9/09 at 0952 hrs through 1st and 2nd opposite party. There is no need for petitioner to be there at airport at 10am and enquire about the flight. 3rd Opposite party denied the allegation of the petitioner with regard to the misbehaviour of the staff of 3rd opposite party. 3rd Opposite party operated the flight for which petitioner purchased the ticket, as per its schedule. According to 3rd opposite party there is no deficiency in service and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of deposition of petitioner as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner and affidavit along with Ext.B1 to B4 documents on the side of the opposite party.
Point No.1
Crux of the case of the petitioner is that due to the act of deficiency committed by opposite parties petitioner was caused to purchase another flight ticket from “Spice Jet” for a higher ticket fare. According to the petitioner the staff of the 3rd opposite party intimated the petitioner that 3rd opposite party was on strike and there is no alternate arrangements. According to 3rd opposite party they operated flight on 9/9/09 and the petitioner voluntarily cancelled his ticket. Admittedly the ticket is for flight 9W 2104(Kochin to Mumbai). Opposite party produced the copy of passenger manifest of the flight No. 9W 2104 of 9/9/09, copy of passenger manifest is marked as Ext.B4. From Ext. B4 document it can be seen that 3rd opposite party operated the flight as per its schedule. From Ext.B1 billing statement it can be seen that petitioner cancelled his ticket prior to the departure of flight No.9W 2104. From Ext.A1 electronic ticket it can be seen that the departure time of the flight is 4.05pm so we cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party for voluntary cancellation of the ticket by the petitioner on 9/9/09 at 0952hrs.
“Deficiency” is defined in the Section 2(g) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as any fault, imperfection short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintain by any law for time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.
Petitioner is examined as PW1. PW1 during cross examination in page No.2 of deposition stated that the flight is to be operated at 4 pm and the petitioner is to be reported at the air port before 1 hr of departure. Further in page No.4 of the deposition he deposed that he does not reported at the concerned authority for a journey at a flight which is to be operated at 4.05pm. In our view petitioner failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 petition is dismissed.
Considering the fact and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of February, 2012.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Electronic ticket receipt dtd. 14/7/09 of Akbar travels
Ext.A2-Copy of PNR look up Spice jet dtd 9/9/09
Ext.A3-Copy of credit note dtd 14/7/09
Ext.A4-Malayala Manorama newspaper dtd13/9/09
Ext.A5-copy of visa
Ext.A6-Copy of reply dtd 25/4/11 of Kochin international airport.
Documents of opposite party
Ext.B1-payment receipt dtd 3/12/09
Ext.B2-Copy of IATA BSP Billing Statement
Ext.B3-copy of PNR of the petitioner
Ext.B4-Copy of passenger manifest of the flight 9W 2104
Witness:
PW1-M.S. Chandrasekharan Nair
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
