THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C. 163/2010
Dated this the 9th day of May 2016
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Beena Joseph, Member:
The petition was filed on 24.04.2010. The case of the complainant is that, he had reserved flight ticket on 04.01.2008 from Calicut to Muscat. When he reached Calicut airport, airlines authority did not allow him to enter into the flight, due to the reason that the complaint has not reconfirm his journey prior to 72 hours. They did not allow complainant to enter into the flight on 04.01.2008. So that complainant had to wait a couple of days for journey that time also OP provided seats in the business class by charging additional amount of Rs.28960/- in addition to the ticket charge and he could not joined duty in time at Muscat, thus he met with mental agony hardships and harassments. All these caused due to the negligence and service deficiency on the part of the opposite party. So he claims 50,000/- rupees as compensation along with the additional ticket charge.
In this matter notice issued to both parties, both of them appeared. Opposite parties filed version stating the following conditions. The petition is barred by Limitation . Opposite party disputes all the allegations and averments in the complainant as false. The opposite party admits that the complainant had reserved a ticket in the opposite parties flight from Kozhikode to Muscat on 04.01.08. But the complainant did not reconfirm the ticket within 72 hours prior to the departure of the flight as stipulated by IATA regulations followed by all international carriers including the opposite party. Since the complainant did not reconfirm the ticket, his reservation was no longer valid and the ticketing system can not continue to hold international tickets which are not reconfirmed. However, the complainant was provided a business class seat in the flight which departing on 06.01.08 and complainant accepted the said offer and traveled by said flight. The opposite party did not charge any amount from the complainant other than the difference in fare between the business and economy class. So there is no service deficiency or illegal trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence opposite party demands for a dismissal of complaint.
In this case complainant filed chief affidavit and examined as PW1, Exts.A1 & A2 Marked. Opposite party filed affidavit but not produced any documents.
Issues to be considered.
- Whether the petition is maintainable or not?
- Is the petition is barred by Limitation?
- Is there any service deficiency or illegal trade practice from the part of opposite parties?
- If Yes what are the awards to be passed?
Point No.1 & 2: The main contention took by the opposite party is that the above petition is not maintainable because it is barred by Limitation. The cause of action arose on 04.01.2008 and complaint was filed on 06.04.2010. So there was a delay of 90 days in filing the above complaint. As per the act it has to be filed within two year from the date of incident. In this regard the complainant filed a petition along with the complaint as IA.80/10 for condoning the delay caused in filing the above complaint under section 24A(2) of C.P.Act. which was allowed by the forum on 06.04.2010 itself. It is held that the delay was already condoned by this forum so the above petition is maintainable and it is not barred by limitation as claimed by the opposite party. Hence these points are found in favour of the complainant.
Point No.3:- It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant had reserved a ticket on 04.01.2008 and he could not travel on that day. And he was given ticket only on 06.01.08 in the business class after charging the difference of fare. The main contention took by the opposite party is that the ticket on 04.01.08 was not reconfirmed by the complainant prior to 72 hours of departure of the flight. Hence the reservation was invalid. The opposite parties done it so as per the IATA regulation for the international carriers. And they provided ticket in the business class on 06.01.08. This is the main contention took by the opposite party in this case but there was no evidence or documents on their part to prove this contentions. In such situation this forum is not able to dismiss the complaint.
Non adducing evidence or documents in order to support their contention can be considered as a serious omissions on the part of opposite parties. And adverse inference can be drawn upon the opposite party, so it is clear that the opposite party illegally canceled the reservation of the complainant after collecting the full amount. So there is service deficiency on the part of the opposite party which amounts to illegal trade practice. Complainant being a Chartered Accountant who works at Muscat, if he could not reach office in time that may cause much complication to the company and the job of the person. Which was not at all considered by the opposite party. The complainant herein had reserved a ticket on 04.01.08 after making full payment in such situation the opposite party need not wait for a reconfirmation from the complainant. Suppose the complainant avoids the journey the opposite party will not reimburse the ticket charge. Bearing this fact in mind it can be safely held that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party. Hence this point is found in favour of the complainant. On the basis of the above discussion the petition is allowed.
In the result we are of the opinion that the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.28,960/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand nine hundred sixty only) which collected from the complainant as excess fare, Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost. Comply the order with, within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
Dated this the 9th day of May 2016.
Date of filing:24.04.2010.
Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-PRESIDENT Sd/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Copy of the flight tickets produced by the complainant
A2.. Copy of the receipt issued by the OP for the payment of the difference of fare.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1.Praveen.P (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
