KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 432/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 18.11.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 206/2011 of DCDRC, Alappuzha)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
M/s Riya Travels and Tours, Tears Towers, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 010 represented by Sunil S.S., Sales Manager.
(By Adv. M. Nizamudeen)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- George Samuel, Vaniyamparambil, Mattom South Muri, Kannamangalam Village, Thattarambalam P.O., Mavelikkara represented by the Power of Attorney Holder Ravi, S/o Velayudhan, Poroor Thekkethil, KandiyoorMuri, Mavelikkara.
(By Adv. G.S. Prakash)
- The Proprietor, Care Ways Travels, Mitchel Junction, Mavelikkara.
- The Manager, Air India, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. V.K. Mohan Kumar for R3)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the 2nd opposite party and the 1st respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 206/2011 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (for short “the District Commission”).
2. The complainant purchased air tickets for the purpose of travelling with his wife from Thiruvananthapuram to Vishakhapattanam on 29.12.2008. As per the tickets provided to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant and his wife had to travel first from Thiruvananthapuram to Chennai in one flight and from Chennai to Vishakhapattanam in another flight. Similar was the case with the return journey on 30.12.2008. When the complainant reached Chennai, the connection flight to Vishakhapattanam was not available. Therefore, the complainant was forced to travel in another flight on paying further charges. In the same way, on 30.12.2008, the complainant and his wife missed the flight from Vishakhapattanam to Chennai and from Chennai to Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, the complainant had to stay back in Chennai for a day to catch another flight. The complainant sustained mental agony and monetary loss. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The opposite parties filed separate versions admitting the issuance of the tickets.
4. The 1st opposite party contended that there was no delay or cancellation of the flights.
5. The 2nd opposite party contended that the 2nd opposite party cannot be responsible for the delay, if any, occasioned.
6. The 3rd opposite party contended that the flight was delayed due to engineering reasons and bad weather. Intimation of the said aspect was duly given to the complainant and to the 2nd opposite party. In the said circumstances, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in this regard.
7. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 series to A17 were marked for the complaint. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 38,800/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred only) with 8% interest per annum and a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant. Aggrieved by the above said order, the 2nd opposite party has filed this appeal.
8. Heard both sides.
9. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had only issued the tickets and he had nothing to do with the operation of the flight, which is the responsibility of the 3rd opposite party, and hence the appellant was not responsible for the delay occasioned and consequently, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has fairly admitted that the complainant had taken tickets from the appellant. The appellant was the agent of the 3rd opposite party and hence the appellant issued the tickets. Therefore, there was principal and agent relationship between the appellant and the 3rd opposite party. Therefore, there is vicarious liability whereby the appellant is also liable for the acts of the 3rd opposite party as an agent.
10. It is borne out from the evidence that the complainant and his wife missed the flight from Chennai to Vishakhapattanam due to the delay of the flight from Thiruvananthapuram to Chennai. In the return journey also, the flight from Vishakhapattanam to Chennai was delayed and the flight from Chennai to Thiruvananthapuram was missed. It was contended by the 3rd opposite party that the flight from Chennai to Vishakhapattanam was delayed due to engineering reason and the flight from Vishakhapattanam to Chennai was delayed due to bad weather. The complainant and his wife had to travel in private airlines from Chennai to Vishakhapattanam on 29.12.2008. The complainant and his wife also had to purchase tickets for travelling in private airlines from Chennai to Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 30,800/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Eight Hundred only) paid by the complainant towards the ticket charges had been lost.
11. The District Commission ordered an amount of Rs. 38,800/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred only) towards the cost of the ticket and other expenses together, which cannot be said to be excessive or harsh or disproportionate considering the mental agony, hardships and financial loss sustained by the complainant. The compensation ordered by the District Commission also does not appear to be excessive. In the said circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Commission.
In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be given to the 1st respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
