KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.394/04 JUDGMENT DATED: 4.6.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.702/02 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYAHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA : MEMBER The Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd., : APPELLANT Anusha Air Travels, 38/1043, Shenoys Junction, M.G.Road, Ernakulam. (By Adv.Nair Ajay Krishnan) Vs. 1. K.M.Ajith Kumar, : RESPONDENTS Kalasam House, Upasana, Chullikkal.P.O., Kochi. (By Adv.P.S.Jayachandran) 2. The Manager, Coraz Travel Trade Links Pvt.Ltd., 39/4191, 2nd Floor, Opp.Deepa Theatre, Ravipuram, Cochin – 17. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 2nd opposite party Sri Lankan Airlines Limited who along with the 1st opposite party travel agent has been imposed with the liability to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.32,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- in OP.702/02 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he obtained 6 tickets on 26.7.2000 from the 1st opposite party travel agent for journey on 2.8.2000 from Thiruvananthapuram to Colombo. These tickets were assigned OK status and on reaching the airport on the day of travel the complainant was told that the tickets are not having OK status. Thereafter they had to go to Chennai to get confirmation on payment of a sum of Rs.1230/- as additional charges per ticket. Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been claimed. 3. 1st opposite party travel agent admitted that the OK tickets were issued by an employee of the 1st opposite party by name Sunil. According to them he is the relative of the complainant. It is admitted that the tickets were not confirmed tickets. According to them the complainant were aware that the tickets were waitlisted. 4. The 2nd opposite party has totally denied the liability. According to them, the 1st opposite party had no authority to issue tickets with OK status when the tickets were not confirmed. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 Exts.A1 to A8, PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.B1 to B5. 6. The appellants have squarely relied on the decisions of the National Commission in Indian Airlines Corpoation vs. Patel Ramubhai Shankar Lal and another, (II)1993 CPJ 205(NC); Air India vs. Yogencha Hiralal Parekh and Others, (II )1996 CPJ 116(NC) wherein it is reiterated that if the agent has committed a mistake beyond his powers, the Airlines cannot be held responsible as the agent has not vested with the powers to exceed the authority conferred. In view of the specific admission by the 1st opposite party that the incident has taken place on account of the action of one of their employees and as the 1st opposite party has no case that there was any default on the part of the 2nd opposite party, we find that the direction that the liability would be joint and several cannot be upheld. 7. We find that the appellant/2nd opposite party cannot be held liable. In the result the order of the Forum is modified to the effect that only the 1st opposite party would be liable. The complainant would be entitled to execute the order only against the 1st opposite party. The appeal is allowed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYAHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA | | 
