O R D E R PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER 1. Petitioner, Lufthansa German Airlines, having failed to persuade both the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai North (District Forum for short) and the Chennai State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission for short) that they were fully justified in denying the claim of the respondents/complainants have filed this revision petition challenging their findings. 2. Briefly stated, Dr. R. Bhaskaran and his wife (the complainants) purchased return journey air tickets from the petitioner Airlines’ travel agent at Chennai and paid a sum of Rs.1,60,160/- on 08.08.2002. The tickets were valid upto the 8th of February, 2003. While the respondents/complainants performed the onward journey to USA on 08.08.2002 as stated in the air tickets, their return journey was kept open for the period of its validity. While in the USA Dr. Bhaskaran, one of the complainants, was taken ill and the couple decided to return to India and, therefore, they approached the petitioner Airlines in the USA to confirm their return journey sometime in the last week of November, 2002. Their request, however, was declined on the ground that seats were not available until January, 2003. Unable to wait until January, 2003, which was the peak winter season, the respondents/complainants had no alternative but to approach other Airlines to return to India. Finally, they managed to return to India by North West Airlines on the 1st of December, 2003 by paying a heavy cost for the tickets. 3. On their return, they approached the travel agent who had issued the tickets i.e. respondent no.3 at Chennai, who reportedly informed that refund for the unused part of the tickets could be admissible on medical grounds subject to a deduction of Rs.4000/. However, that was not to be as the petitioner Airlines when approached with the necessary document rejected their claim for refund forcing the respondents/complainants to approach the District Forum. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Airlines, who amongst other pleas mainly contended that the respondents/complainants having availed the discounted tickets under the Excursion Fare Scheme of the Airlines, which was covered by certain specific terms and conditions, they were not entitled to any refund for the partially used tickets. The District Forum after due consideration of the material/documents and evidence produced by the parties felt that the petitioner Airlines had not been able to establish its defence and, therefore, held them liable and ordered them to refund Rs.80,080/- with a cost of Rs.1000/- within two months from the passing of its order. Aggrieved thereupon, the petitioner Airlines filed appeal before the State Commission who too did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same, thereby confirming the order of the District Forum. This is how the petitioner Airlines is before this Commission by virtue of this revision petition filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 4. The fact with regard to the purchase of return tickets by the respondents/complainants at a cost of Rs.1,60,160/- (Rs.80,080/- each for Dr. Bhaskaran and his wife) is not in dispute. Also not in dispute is their onward journey to Washington on 08.08.2002 and that their return journey was valid upto 08.02.2003. What, however, is the bone of contention between the parties is that the tickets were issued under the Excursion Fare Scheme, under which the respondents/complainants enjoyed certain concessions in the tariff, which was subject to certain limitations with regard to the period of validity of tickets and conditions for refund. 5. While the learned counsel for the petitioner Airlines admits that there is no specific endorsement on the tickets that they were issued under the Excursion Fare Scheme, he refers to the code-word in the tickets ‘HE6M’ and goes on to explain that ‘H’ stands for Economy while ‘E’ stands for Excursion and ‘6M’ stands for the validity being restricted to six months. He further contends that their travel agent at the time of booking of tickets had explained the terms and conditions of the scheme and the respondents/complainants not having categorically denied that they had not availed any concessions and in fact in para 5 of their reply having stated “It is submitted that in order to attract the passengers some concessions are given in almost all the Airlines and it was not special in this Airlines alone and passengers could purchase open tickets in all the Airlines and they can confirm the return tickets for their return journey as per the schedule.” impliedly admit that the tickets in fact were purchased by them under a concession. 6. We are not convinced with this line of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner Airlines for the simple reason that the respondents/complainants have totally denied that the petitioner Airlines’ travel agent had ever informed them that the tickets were issued under any special scheme or that they are being given such concessions. Reference to the code-word in the tickets to say the least is at best an information for the internal consumption and management of the Airlines and a consumer cannot dream of the implications behind each letter. The Airlines ought to have clearly stated on the jacket of the tickets that the same were being issued under a special concessional scheme and it ought to have given the terms and conditions attached to the tickets as opposed to a normal ticket. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Airlines has further referred to the Excursion Fare Scheme Chart and has vehemently argued that the said chart clearly prohibits the refund of any fare much less for the partially used tickets. This again is a document about which there is no public knowledge or notice nor have the respondents/complainants been apprised of this condition and, therefore, it would not help the petitioner Airlines. 8. In their written arguments in order to prove that the respondents/complainants enjoyed concessional fare, it has been stated that as against the normal fare of Rs.2,16,000/- stated on the tickets, they have realized only Rs.1,60,160/- from the respondents/complainants. From a scrutiny of the tickets, photocopies of which have been filed by the petitioner themselves, however, we do not find any mention of the normal fare being Rs.2,16,000/-. This clearly belies their claim/contention. 9. On the totality of the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, it is proved beyond doubt that the petitioner Airlines had not revealed either on the tickets or by means of any leaflet that they were issued under an excursion fare scheme or that no refund will be permitted for partially used tickets. The air ticket is the document of contract between the passenger and the Airlines and it has to contain the specific terms and conditions. In a number of cases this Commission has held that fine prints on the jacket of the tickets are most often impossible for a passenger to read and make sense out of them. In the present case, only code-words have been used expecting the passenger to imagine the limitations themselves, which is, to say the least, is totally anti-consumer. It is not open for the petitioner Airlines to withhold some information on their records and not incorporating them in clear terms in the tickets. The interpretation as made by the State Commission, in our view, is fully in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The matter having received the full consideration in the hands of two fora below and their findings being concurrent in nature, just and appropriate, we do not find any occasion to interfere therein. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [II (2010) CPJ 19 (SC)], on this subject has held as under :- “23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora” . 11. Respectfully, drawing support from the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court as above, we do not find that there is any prima facie jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice in the impugned order, warranting our interference. 12. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to cost. |
