Srilankan Airlines Ltd., the petitioner herein, was the opposite party before the District Forum.

Respondent/complainant had purchased two tickets from the petitioner for traveling from Chennai to London via Colombo on 20.8.2001 and return journey from London to Chennai.  Respondent had utilized the ticket for the journey from Chennai to London via Colombo.  So far as the return journey ticket is concerned, the same

-2-

was kept open since the complainant was not sure of date of her return from United Kingdom.  Respondent could not utilize the ticket for return for her own reasons and accordingly, instructed her Power of Attorney in India to return the ticket and ask for the refund of the money.  Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant in accordance with the directions issued by the respondent/complainant approached the petitioner and surrendered the original unused return ticket on 24.1.2004 and claimed for refund of Rs.15,435/-.  The petitioner instead of refunding the amount of Rs.15,435/-, refunded a sum of Rs.1,915/- only.  Respondent, thereafter, issued a legal notice to the petitioner calling upon it to refund the remaining amount of Rs.13,520/-.  Since the demand made by the respondent was not complied with, she filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service.

Petitioner’s case in the Written Statement before the District Forum was that the respondent had purchased the two tickets for journey from Chennai to London and from London to Chennai at a concessional rate and, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to

-3-

the refund of the money; that the economic class ticket was of Rs.60,820/- whereas the respondent was given two tickets for a sum of Rs.47,000/- on special excursion fare which was introduced for a period of four months only; that as the ticket was given to the respondent on a concessional rate, the same was made ‘Non-refundable’.  

District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the respondent is not entitled to refund of the money as the amount paid was non-refundable. 

Respondent not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission reversed the order passed by the District Forum on the ground that as per the Clause 12 of conditions of the Contract, Refund will be made provided that the unused coupons are surrendered within three years after the expiry date of their validity.     Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the petitioner was directed to refund the sum of Rs.13,520/- with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 24.1.2004 till realization.

-4-

Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

Respondent was served with notice.  A reply was filed.  Since there was no representation on behalf of the respondent, another notice was issued to the respondent on 16.12.2009, in response to which the complainant/respondent has sent her reply through her counsel Sh. S. G. Krishna.  None is present on behalf of the respondent today.  Ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.   

Sh. S. G. Krishna, counsel for the respondent in the written submissions has supported the judgment passed by the State Commission.  In her reply, respondent has again relied upon Clause 12 wherein it has been laid down that in case unused coupon is surrendered within three years from the expiry of validity, the airlines authorities were required to refund the same. 

From the facts gathered from record, we find that on ticket it was clearly mentioned that fare is ‘Non-Refundable’.  In view of the same, respondent was not entitled to refund of amount on   surrender

-5-

of the ticket.  If the respondent wanted a refundable ticket, she should have purchased the ticket for the higher fare i.e. Rs.60,820/- and not at the concessional fare.  The refunds are governed by the airlines rules and not the travel agents.  The ticket was sold subject to conditions of contract and as per the conditions of contract entered into between the parties, the amount of ticket was not refundable and it was so written on the ticket.  Respondent was not entitled to the refund of the amount of unutilized ticket.  The order of the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored.

Revision petition is allowed in above terms.