BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONHYDERABAD
F.A. 1781/2007 against C.C 156/2007, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad.
Between:
Air Deccan (Deccan Aviation Ltd)
35, Cunningham Road
Bangalore-560 052.
By its Authorised Representative
Now represented by
M/s. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.
Kingfisher Office,
Western Express Highway
Villa Parle (E), Mumbai.
Through its Authorised Representative
(Amended as per orders of this Commission
Dt. 16.7.2010. *** Appellant/
Op No. 2
And
1. E. Prakash, S/o. E. Mallaiah
R/o. 8-1-303/15
Vivekananda Nagar
Shaikpet, Golkonda Post
Hyderabad-500 008.
2. I. H. Murali, S/o. I. S. Raju
Ayurvedic Physician
3. N. Shiva Kumar,
S/o. N. Shankaraiah
Business.
4. M. Peer Singh, S/o. Hari Singh
Dy. Executive Engineer
Public Health Department
5. P. Nageswar Rao, S/o. Mallappa,
Dy. Executive Engineer
Public Health Dept.
(Complainant Nos. 2 to 5 are
R/o. H. S. Darga, R.R. Dist.
Post Golkonda, Hyderabad-8. *** Respondents/
Complainants.
6. M/s. Neo Aero Jet Travels Pvt. Ltd.
United House, 1st Floor
Public Gardens, Nampally
Hyderabad-500 001. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 1.
Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. Vijaya Sagi.
Counsel for the Resp: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party No. 2 Air Deccan against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 13,488.60 towards flight charges besides compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs.
2) The case of the complainants in brief is that they have booked the air tickets in the appellant air craft through R1 its agent on 1.11.2006 to travel from Hyderabad to Cochin on 20.12.2006 and return journey from Cochin to Hyderabad on 24.12.2006. While so on their return journey on 24.12.2006 when they came to the Cochin airport they found that their tickets were cancelled. When they approached the airport authorities they informed that their tickets were cancelled and rescheduled to 22.12.2006 and as they did not come on that day they noted the status of journey as “No show”. In fact there was no message to them. They never booked the tickets for 22.12.2006. Therefore they were constrained to take another flight by spending extra time and money. When they sought for refund, they did not pay, as such they sent a legal notice for which no reply was given. Therefore they sought for refund of Rs. 13,488.60 together with interest @ 12% p.a., besides compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs.
3) The appellant resisted the case. It alleged that the complainants had concocted a story in order to claim damages. It admitted the purchase of to and fro tickets, however stated that return ticket was cancelled. Again they got it booked for 22.12.2006 and the same was confirmed. They might have advanced the journey to 22.12.2006 and when they did not come, as against their tickets it was noted as “No show”. They were not liable to pay any compensation and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainants in proof of their case filed affidavit evidence of first complainant and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked while the appellant filed the affidavit evidence of Sri Navodit Mehra, Head-Legal and he did not file any documents though he mentioned in his affidavit at para-8 about Exs. B1 & B2 tickets showing cancellation on 24th and confirmation on 22nd.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that Ex. A4 would show that the complainants had confirmed tickets for 24. 12.2006. There is no proof that the travel was advanced to 22.12.2006. Not permitting the complainants to travel on 24.12.2006 constitutes deficiency in service, directed the appellant to refund Rs. 13,488.60 with interest @ 9% p.a., from 24.12.2006 till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant Air Deccan preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the complainants five in number booked the tickets for travel on 22.12.2006 and when they did not report they were declared as “No show” passengers. The tickets purchased for 24.12.2006 were cancelled as it was rescheduled for 22.12.2006 and therefore prayed that they need not pay any amount. There was no negligence on its part. Therefore it prayed that the appeal be allowed, consequently dismiss the complaint.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that earlier the complainants had booked flight tickets for their journey from Hyderabad to Cochin on 27.10.2006 vide Ex. A2 for their travel for 20. 12. 2006. It looks as though they booked the flight tickets for their return journey for 24.12.2006 from Cochin to Hyderabad on 1.11.2006 vide Ex. A3. When they went to Cochin airport in order to board the flight on 24.12.2006 the airport authorities refused boarding pass on the ground that they had cancelled the tickets vide Ex. A4. They have also informed that they have advanced their journey to 22.12.2006, and when they did not report there was a mention “No show” The allegation of the appellant is that the complainants had advanced their journey from 24th to 22nd and when they did not report at the airport it was mentioned “No show”. Despite the fact that the complainants disputed that they had not advanced their journey the appellant did not file any documents to show about the advancement of their journey. When the appellant admits that all to and fro tickets were booked through their agent Op1, it did not obtain the affidavit evidence of its agent to show that the complainants had advanced their journey from 24th to 22nd. When the appellant alleges the said fact, it is its bounden duty to prove that the journey was advanced, after cancelling the tickets scheduled on 24.12.2006. We reiterate except taking this contention, the appellant did not file any document. The documents that were filed by the complainant they would not show that there was advancement of journey date and the journey ticket dt. 24.12.2006 was cancelled. What all the complainant could prove in such circumstances was the purchase of tickets, confirming the date of journey. If any advancement of journey is made necessarily it should be revealed from the tickets or from the other data available with the appellant.
9) At the cost of repetition we may state that the appellant did not file any documents to show that at the instance of the complainant, journey was advanced from 24th to 22nd and since they could not report at the airport on 22nd, the journey could not be taken and the tickets on 24th was cancelled. The Dist. Forum after considering the entire evidence has appreciated the facts in correct perspective. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. There are no merits in the appeal.
10) In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 27. 09. 2010.
*pnr
