KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 23/2019

JUDGMENT DATED: 19.01.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 560/2015 of CDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

M/s Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri East, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Pin-400 099 represented by its Authorized Officer and Assistant Manager, Sri. Padmakumar.

       (By Advs. George Cherian Karippaparambil & S. Reghukumar)

RESPONDENTS:

1. C. Thomas, Mahima Bhavan, Arukalickal West Vayala P.O., Parakode, Pathanamthitta-691 554.

(Party in person)

2. Lissy Philip, Mahima Bhavan, Arukalickal West Vayala P.O., Parakode, Pathanamthitta-691 554.

3. Sunu Thomas, Mahima Bhavan, Arukalickal West Vayala P.O., Parakode, Pathanamthitta-691 554.

4. The Manager, ITL World Travel Management Company, ITL House, M.G. Road, Ravipuram, Kochi-682 016.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

The 1^st opposite party in C.C. No. 560/2015 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (District Commission for short) is the appellant.  The respondents 1 to 3 are the complainants and the 4^th respondent is the 2^nd opposite party in the complaint.  For the purpose of convenience, the parties shall be referred to herein, in accordance with their status before the District Commission. 

2.  The complaint was filed by the complainants in the following facts and circumstances: The complainants had purchased tickets from the 2^nd opposite party for travelling from Thiruvananthapuram to Mumbai on 27.05.2015. They had also purchased return tickets from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram on 30.05.2015.  The tickets were purchased on 21.02.2015.  According to them, the purpose of their travel was for the 2^nd complainant to attend an interview.  But the interview was cancelled.  Therefore, they had to cancel their travel as planned.  In the above circumstances, they sought for cancellation of their tickets and for refund of the amount paid.  As per letter dated 27.05.2015 the request for refund was rejected by the opposite parties.  The complainants therefore filed the complaint seeking return of the cost of the air tickets amounting to Rs. 27,600/-.  They also sought for compensation and costs of the litigation.

3.  The complaint was contested by the opposite parties by failing separate versions.  The 1^st opposite party admitted the booking of the tickets by the complainants through the 2^nd opposite party on 21.02.2015.  The date of journey from Thiruvananthapuram to Mumbai was on 27.05.2015 and the return journey was on 30.05.2015.  According to them, as per the fare rule applicable to the particular sector for travel, the tickets were non-refundable.  All the travel agents and the general public had also been notified of the said rule.  The fare rule is known to the travel agent and the customers.  This is the reason why the 2^nd opposite party had returned the tickets to the complainants, giving in writing that the tickets were non-refundable.  The 1^st opposite party had on receipt of the notice issued a reply letter dated 27.05.2015 clearly stating that the fare offered to the guests was governed by certain fare rule which includes payment of cancellation/amendment charges in case of any changes in the travel itinerary.  Further, it was clearly notified that with respect to the tickets purchased by the complainants, as per the fare rules, Thiruvananthapuram-Mumbai sector is non-refundable.  Accordingly, the 1^st opposite party informed the 1^st complainant that the ticket charges were non-refundable.  Therefore, the complainants had no cause of action against the opposite parties.  On the above grounds they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.  The 2^nd opposite party filed a separate version contending that the complaint was filed with ulterior motives. At the time of booking the 2^nd opposite party had specifically informed that the tickets booked in Jet Airways in Thiruvananthapuram-Mumbai Sector were non-refundable in case of cancellation in view of the fare rule for Jet Airways.  The 2^nd opposite party has nothing to do with the refund as the refund was to be done by the 1^st opposite party. On the above grounds, the 2^nd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.  The parties went to trial on the above pleadings.  The evidence in the case consists of Exts. A1 to A7 documents and the oral testimony of the 1^stcomplainant as PW1 on the side of the complainants.  The opposite parties had examined DW1 on their side, but had no documentary evidence. 

6.  The District Commission heard both sides and considered the evidence in the light of the contentions of the parties.  The District Commission found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and allowed the complaint.  Both the opposite parties have been jointly and severally made liable and directed refund of the ticket fare after deducting the admissible cancellation charges alone, to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each to the complainants for the mental agony suffered by them, to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each to the complainants for the unfair trade practice committed against them in not intimating in writing that the tickets were non-refundable.  A further amount of Rs. 5,000/- is ordered to be paid by the opposite parties jointly and severally as litigation expenses.  If the amounts are not paid within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, the above amounts would carry interest @ 12% per annum from 27.05.2015 till the date of the scheduled journey on which date the refund ought to have been made.   It is aggrieved by the said order that this appeal is filed.

7.  It is vehemently contended by the counsel for the appellant that as per the fare rule applicable to Thiruvananthapuram-Mumbai sector, the tickets purchased by the complainants were non-refundable.  All the agents of the appellant including the 2^nd opposite party had been duly informed of the above fact, which had been intimated to the complainants also.  Therefore, it is contended that there was no justification for the direction of the District Commission to pay compensation to the complainants.  It is also contended that the above facts had been communicated to the complainants on 27.05.2015.  According to the learned counsel, therefore, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been committed by the appellant.  The finding of the District Commission to the said effect is wrong and liable to be set aside.  It also prejudicially affects the reputation and good name of the appellant.  On the above grounds, the appellant seeks interference with the order of the District Commission. 

8.  The 1^st respondent appeared in person and represented respondents 2 & 3 also.  The 4^th respondent remained ex-parte. 

9.  Heard.  The fact that the complainants had purchased tickets from the 1^st opposite party for travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Mumbai on 27.05.2015 and return ticket for travel from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram on 30.05.2015 is not disputed.  It is also not in dispute that all the tickets were cancelled more than two weeks prior to the date of the proposed travel.  However, the request of the complainants for refund of the purchase price of the tickets was rejected by the appellant.  The reason stated for the rejection of the request for refund is that, the appellant had a fare rule that the tickets issued with respect to Thiruvananthapuram-Mumbai sector were non-refundable in the event of cancellation.  However, no such fare rule has been produced by the appellant in these proceedings.  The appellant has a further case that the fare rule had been intimated to the 2^nd opposite party.  But no such communication was produced.  The tickets issued which are marked as Exts. A1 and A4 series also do not show any endorsement to the effect that they were non-refundable.  In short, there is nothing on record to support the contention of the appellant that the tickets issued to the complainants were non-refundable.  As rightly found by the District Commission, had the tickets been non-refundable it was imperative for the appellant to have intimated the said fact to the complainants at the time of issuing the tickets.  No such intimation has been given.  Therefore, the finding of the District Commission that the omission to intimate the details of the fare rule to the complainants to the effect that the tickets were non-refundable amounted to unfair trade practice.  We confirm the said finding.  We find that, the reliefs granted by the District Commission are only reasonable and commensurate with the extent of the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainants.  Therefore, the other reliefs are also confirmed. 

For the above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the order of the District Commission against which this appeal is filed.  This appeal is accordingly dismissed.  No costs. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

jb                                                                                                RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER