JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.5.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OP to return Rs.59,010/- taken by it, in excess of the fare for Dubai ; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for adopting unfair trade practice, alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5000/-. It was further directed that the OP (now appellant) shall pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days, to the complainant(now respondent), from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which it would be liable to pay the penal interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 30.12.2008, till the payment was actually made to the complainant. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant and his wife Pushpa Pandey, got an entry permit from UAE on 27.7.2008, for Dubai, which was valid for 30 days. He approached the OP for booking of tickets in business class, which was not available with it, but it booked the tickets @ Rs.52,000/- per person and charged Rs.1,04,000/- for two tickets. He issued the receipt dated 2.8.2008 along with electronic ticket, copies of which are Annexure C-3 & C-4 respectively. It was stated that the complainant had also purchased 600 Dollars from the OP, which were later on, found to be counterfeit. At the time of booking the tickets, the complainant was told that the same would be automatically upgraded, when he boarded the plane. It was further stated that the authorities at the Airport had demanded 632 dollars for upgrading the tickets and, therefore, he and his wife had to travel in the economy class. It was further stated that the OP had charged airfare for business class, but had issued tickets of economy class, and had also issued counterfeit dollars. It was further stated that these acts of the OP amounted to deficiency, in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no other alternative, he filed a Complaint under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only). 3. The OP, put in appearance, and filed written reply, wherein it was admitted that the tickets, in question, were purchased by the Complainant for Economy (M) class and not for Business class. It was also admitted that the OP had charged an amount of Rs.1,04,000/- from the complainant for two tickets, out of which, Rs.94,160/- were paid to the Airlines, Rs.9840/- were deducted as service charges/commission for rendering services, to the Complainant, on account of, sale of the said tickets. It was further stated that no dollars were ever given/sold by the OP, to the Complainant. It was also denied that any assurance was given that the tickets would automatically be upgraded when he and his wife boarded the plane. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service, on the part of the OP or it indulged into unfair trade practice. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the judgment. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the OP/ Appellant. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, the appellant never charged excess fare from the complainant for two tickets for travel in Economy (M) class. He further submitted that the amount which was charged by the OP, is duly mentioned in C-3 copy of the invoice. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the OP was not deficient, in rendering service nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in accepting the complaint. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to set aside. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the complainant/respondent submitted, that the fare for economy class, for going to Dubai and back in those days, was between Rs.24,000/- to Rs.28,000/-. He further submitted that the OP charged a sum of Rs.52,000/- per ticket, from the complainant, for travelling in the Business class. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, excess fare was charged by the OP, and by not refunding the same, when demanded, he was not only deficient in rendering service but also indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant purchased two tickets- one for himself and one for his wife, for going to Dubai. It is admitted by the OP that it charged a sum of Rs.1,04,000/- for two tickets, from the complainant, which included Rs.880/- as tax and Rs.9840/- as service charges. It is evident from para-6 of the order of the District Forum, that, as per the information, downloaded from the internet, the airfare for Economy class, for going to Dubai and back on 3.8.2008, started from Rs.22,495/- which included the commission, if any, payable to the travel agent. In case, the fare for the economy class, for travelling to Dubai on 3.8.2008 was Rs.52,000/- per ticket, then the OP must be having the record of airlines which he could produce to prove this factum. However, the OP did not produce any document showing that actually the airfare per ticket for economy class, for going to Dubai, as on 3.8.2008, was Rs.52,000/-. Under these circumstances, the OP withheld the best evidence, in his possession, and, as such, an adverse inference could be drawn against him, had the same been produced, it would not have supported his case. Ex. R1 is the document, which was relied upon by the OP. The case of the OP is that according to this document, he paid Rs.46,200/- per ticket as airfare, Rs.880/- per ticket as tax and remaining Rs.9840/- were retained by him, as his services charges. This document does not bear the signatures of any person. Even the affidavits of the person, who prepared this document, and to whom the payment was made, were not produced in evidence. In R-1, there is no mention, as to wherefrom it was obtained. Even R-1 did not show, as to whether, it was a quotation with regard to the Economy class or Business class. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that since R-1 was not an authenticated document and, as such, it did not carry any evidentiary value. No Billing Settlement Plan was produced by the OP, as to what, payment was made by him for two tickets of the complainant, and his wife. So, the District Forum was right, in holding that instead of charging Rs.22495/- per ticket, the OP charged Rs.52,000/- , which was more than double the amount, which amounted to unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, thus, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5000/-. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 12. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
