IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 14th day of September, 2010. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 179/08 (Filed on 01.12.2008)Between: Ajoy Alex Mathew, General Manager, Alfuthqain Electronics, P.O. Box No.2724, Dubai Present Address: C/o G.M. Idiculla, Advocate & Notary, Mulammoottil, Kozhencherry. (By Adv. Sabu Thomas) .... Complainant. And: 1. General Manager, Jet Lite India Ltd., 2nd Floor, A 110-Road No.5, National Highways, No.65, Mahipalpure Ext., New Delhi – 110 017. (By Adv. Roshan Thomas) 2. ITL Tours Travels, House 39/4704, M.G. Road, Ravipuram, Cochin. 3. Akbar Travels, P.K.R. Buildings, Pathanamthitta. .... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant is an Engineer having MBA degree working as the General Manager of Alfathaine Electronics-Dubai for the last 15 years. First opposite party is the Jetlite India Ltd, operating Air flights. Second opposite party is JTH Tours Travels, Cochin who issued the ticket to complainant. The third opposite party is the approved agent of the first opposite party at Pathanamthitta. 3. The first opposite party in their Magazine Xpressions of May 2008 as on page No.78, given an advertisement regarding flight charges from one place to another. The flight charges of daily schedule from Kochi to Delhi as stated in advertisement is show as below: From | To | Departure | Arrival | Lite Fare | Cochin | Delhi | 1610 Hrs. | 1915 | Rs.1,495/- |
4. Complainant decided to travel from Cochin to Delhi on 6th May 2008. For that he contacted the second opposite party on phone for availing a ticket to Delhi from Cochin. The assurance was received by the complainant on the belief that ticket charge is as advertised ` 1,495 plus taxes and surcharge. But when the complainant went to collect the ticket, to his dismay, he was told that the charge is fare ` 18,995 and total amount including taxes/fees/charges is ` 21,770. 5. As there was no option to postpone the travel for the reason that in case complainant failed to travel to Delhi on 06.05.2008 on his way to Dubai as previously arranged, he would have lost his job in Dubai. The said act of the opposite parties 1 and 2 are unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint for getting the refund of extra amount with compensation and cost. 6. Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed version. Second opposite party has not appeared and declared as exparte. 7. First opposite party filed separate version stating that complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. According to them, no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant is attempting to maintain this complaint by impleading the third opposite party, who has nothing to do with this dispute. The third opposite party is not a branch office of first or second opposite party. The third opposite party is not even an approved agent of this opposite party in Pathanamthitta. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed, as it does not satisfy any of the conditions stipulated in Sec.11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act. 8. First opposite party has never gave any assurance to the complainant as to the availability of the ticket or with regard to the charges payable by him. As a matter of fact, first opposite party never used to give any assurance to any person regarding anything about the ticket unless he remits the charges for the said ticket. According to them, complainant himself admitted that he was working in Dubai for the past 15 years. Therefore, it is clear that he is a frequent traveller and is a person well conversant with booking of air tickets. Therefore, it is impossible to conclude that he has booked the ticket without verifying the rate payable for the ticket. Hence, first opposite party cannot be blamed for the same under any circumstances. 9. According to first opposite party, the ticket charge shown is correct, as it is as per the normal rates prevailing at the relevant time. But the averment to the effect that complainant was surprised to know the rates, is false. He is making a concocted story with the sole intention to mislead the Forum so as to get favourable orders. The averment that he has booked the ticket by seeing the advertisement is incorrect and hence denied. The said advertisement has nothing to do with the booking of the ticket. The complainant booked the ticket on 03.05.2008 under normal rates. In the meanwhile, he came across the advertisement and now he is making use of the said advertisement with the malafide intention to extract money from this opposite party. The ticket obtained only three days prior to the journey. The ticket issued by this opposite party was not as per the said scheme as shown in the advertisement. Moreover, complainant has not lodged any protest with respect to the collection of the said charges at the time of booking or at any point of time before the journey. Even in the complaint, there is no averment to that effect. According to the complainant, he came to know about the rates at least on 03.05.2008. Therefore, nothing prevented him from not purchasing the ticket at the said rates. 10. There is no cause of action for the complainant against any of the opposite parties. The first opposite party has not done any acts which amount to unfair trade practice. The averment that this opposite party has collected more amounts than shown in the advertisement is incorrect and misleading. All the conditions with regard to the rates are available in the wesite of this opposite party. It is specifically requested in the said advertisement, to visit the said website or to call in the numbers mentioned therein, for booking. Therefore, this opposite party provided sufficient indications in the said advertisement to verify the conditions for availing the advantages in the said scheme. All the prominent airlines in the country are making such kind of advertisement. It is also an undisputable fact that no person can operate flights by collecting the rate mentioned in the said advertisement for all the passengers carried in a flight. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him. This complaint itself is filed without bonafides and on an experimental basis. Therefore, first opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 11. The third opposite party filed separate version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to them, they are not an agent of the first opposite party. The complainant has not approached the third opposite party for an air ticket and it has not issued any ticket to him. The third opposite party is not responsible for the loss or injuries caused to the complainant. They had no business transaction with the complainant till date. 12. The complainant falsely impleaded the third opposite party as a party to the complaint solely for filing this case before this Forum. The cause of action of this complaint has not arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. This Forum is not the proper Forum for filing this complaint and the complainant simply abusing the process of this Forum. Therefore, third opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 13. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the relief sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Relief and Cost? 14. The evidence of the complainant consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Evidence of opposite parties consists of the proof affidavit filed by the 1st and 3rd opposite parties. 1st opposite party was examined as DW1 and the documents produced by him has been marked as Ext.B1. 2nd opposite party has not yet appeared and declared as exparte. After closure of evidence, opposite parties 1 and 3 were heard. 15. Point No.1: This point has already heard and decided in favour of complainant in I.A. No.118/09. 16. Points 2 and 3: In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant’s Power of Attorney Holder filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the inflight magazine of Jetlite named ‘Xpressions ’ dated May 2008. Ext.A2 is the Electronic ticket. Ext.A3 is the copy of notice sent to first opposite party. 17. In order to prove the opposite parties’ contention, first and third opposite parties filed separate proof affidavits. The Sales Manager of first opposite party was examined as DW1 and the document produced has been marked as Exts.B1. Ext.B1 is the photocopy from website www.jetlite.com. After the closure of evidence, complainant and first and third opposite parties were heard. 18. On the basis of the averment and contention of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. It is seen that there is no dispute regarding the amount paid for the purchasing the ticket. The only dispute is that opposite parties charges exorbitant flight charges of ` 18,995 even though the charges as stated in page No.54 of Ext.A1 is ` 1,495. 19. According to first opposite party, the details and conditions of booking are available in website as stated in Ext.A1. The rate published in Ext.A1 is applicable only if booking prior to 21 days. But complainant purchased the ticket only 3 days prior to the journey. The Ext.A2 ticket was not as per Ext.A1 scheme as shown in the advertisement. 20. On a perusal of Ext.B1, it is revealed that the terms and conditions are effective on August 6, 2008. In this case, complainant purchased the ticket on 03.05.2008. The available evidence on record does not reveal that Ext.B1 has any retrospective effect from the date of purchase of Ext.A2 onwards. It is also seen that Ext.A2 charge is not shown either in Ext.A1 or in Ext.B1. 21. Though the first opposite party disclosed the terms and conditions of booking in Ext.B1, but the same has not states the normal rate of ticket charge corresponding to Ext.A1 charge. It is the boundan duty of opposite parties to do transparency in their dealings. Charging exorbitant fare having no basis, by hidden and unjustifiable way is against the principle of consumer justice. It is squarely an unfair trade practice. The materials on record shows that second and third opposite parties are only act as agent of the first opposite party and therefore, they are exonerating from any liability. The first opposite party is liable to pay compensation, cost and directed not to indulge in such unfair trade practice. 22. In the result, complaint is allowed, thereby the complainant is allowed to realise ` 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation and a cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) from the first opposite party. The first opposite party is also directed under Sec.14(1)(f) to discontinue the said unfair trade practice and further not to repeat it. The amount so awarded is to be given to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount will fall at the rate of 9% interest per annum from this date, till the realisation of the whole amount. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 14th day of September, 2010. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : Not agreed Smt. Lathika Bhai (Member) : Agreed (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: G.M. Idiculla. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Inflight Magazine of Jetlite for the month of May, 2008 A2 : Photocopy of the Electronic Ticket Receipt. A3 : Copy of letter dated 26.05.2008 issued by G.M. Idiculla, Advocate, to the first opposite party. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : V. Jayamohan. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Jetlite press release (website page) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): Complainant’s case is that he had booked an Air Ticket of the 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party on 03.05.2008 for his travel to Delhi on 06.05.2008. According to the complainant, at the time of booking the second opposite party had assured that the ticket fare is ` 1,495 as advertised in Ext.A1. But at the time of purchase of the ticket they demanded and collected ` 21,770 for the ticket. But the complainant had not adduced any evidence before this Forum for the said assurance of the second opposite party. From the available evidence, it is seen that the complainant is working at Dubai for the last 15 years and he is a regular passenger in flight. So he is well aware of the rules, regulations, terms and conditions for getting Air tickets and the various categories and classes of air ticket. It is a fact that in almost all airline companies have limited number of lower rate tickets, which will be issued subject to the availability of such tickets. Normally, such tickets are not available at the last hours. According to the opposite parties, lower rate tickets can be booked well in advance and such tickets will be issued 21 days prior to the date of journey. The complainant had no case that he had booked his ticket 21 days prior to his proposed date of journey and such type of tickets are available with the second opposite party at the time of booking. In Ext.A1 advertisement, along with the rate of ticket, it is also published by the opposite parties that the passengers who want such ticket has to contact the address and telephone numbers given in the advertisement which is as follows: ‘For bookings, visit www.jetlite.com or call 1 800 22 3020 (from MTNL/BSNL) or 30302020’. So as per Ext.A1 advertisement, we cannot say that the second opposite party had such tickets with him. The complainant had also no case that he had contacted in the address and the telephone numbers given in the advertisement. The contention of the complainant that he had purchased ticket from the second opposite party under certain compelling circumstances cannot be accepted, because, as per Ext.A2 ticket, the ticket was issued on 03.05.2008. So it is clear that he had 2 more days for thinking of an alternate ticket of other companies.. Moreover, the booking might have been done prior to 03.05.2008, nobody can believe that at the time of booking the ticket, the rate of the ticket had not been communicated to the passengers. Apart from the above, the opposite party had a case that this complaint is the outcome of an after thought after the complainant’s journey on getting Ext.A1 advertisement which cannot be ruled out in the facts and circumstances of this case. The date of publication of Ext.A1, the date of booking of the ticket, date of journey, date of filing of this complaint (Ext.A3 legal notice is not supported by postal receipt or A.D. card) etc. supports opposite parties contention. 2. On the basis of the above discussions and from the facts and circumstances of this complaint, I find no deficiency or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties and hence this complaint is not allowable. 3. In the result, I dismissed this complaint. No cost. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 14th day of September, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) By Order, Senior Superintendent Copy to:- (1) G.M. Idiculla, Advocate & Notary, Mulammoottil, Kozhencherry. (2) General Manager, Jet Lite India Ltd., 2nd Floor, A 110-Road No.5, National Highways, No.65, Mahipalpure Ext., New Delhi – 110 017. (3) ITL Tours Travels, House 39/4704, M.G. Road, Ravipuram, Cochin. (4) Akbar Travels, P.K.R. Buildings, Pathanamthitta. (5) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
