SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

                Complainant filed this complaint under Section- 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for getting an order directing the Opposite parties to refund the amount equal to Irani Rial 26663000/- (Rs. 81250) with interest @ 12% P.A from 14-10-2014 to complainants, besides compensation of Rs. 25000/- to each member of the troupe for the mental agony and suffering with cost of the proceedings. 

               Brief facts of the case are that the complainant representing as the

-1-

Chairman - of Folkland organization filed the consumer complaint in question against the opposite parties authorized Regional representative of Kuwait Airways and 2 to 4 are agent and subagents, alleging deficiency in service towards them, resulting in lot of physical loss and mental agony to them, during their return travel from Tehran to Bombay.  The complainant had purchased the 13 flight tickets for travel from Bombay to Tehran on 07/10/2014and return from Tehran to Bombay on 14/10/2014.  The complainants made a payment of Rs. 26790/- per ticket.  Opposite parties 3 and 4 had arranged the 13 tickets through other two opposite parties 1 and 2 and purchased the flight tickets from the 4^th opposite party.

             It has been alleged that while returning from Tehran on 14/10/2010, the complainant and his party were asked by the 1^st opposite party to pay an additional sum of Irani Rail 26663000/- towards Airport Hotel booking charges at Kuwait Airport.  The complainant did neither book hotel rooms through opposite party at Kuwait nor availed its facility compelling to pay the demanded charges.  It has been alleged that opposite party-1 did not ready to hear the request of the complainant and his party that they do not need any hotel rooms and were ready to stay back in the airport itself for changing the flight from Kuwait.  But opposite party-1 denied boarding passes to the complainants to fly from Tehran to Kuwait, unless they pay the hotel charges demanded by opposite party -1.  Further it is stated that the complainants had filed a complaint before the 1^st opposite party, but opposite party -1 was so adamant that they turned down the request of the complaints to free them from making payment.  As the complainants did not carry either US dollars or Irani Rail demanded by 1^st opposite party, they were put to heavy mental agony and hardships. It is further alleged that the complainant with great difficulty arranged Irani Rails 26663000/-through their host in Irani and remitted to opposite party – 1 and obtained boarding pass and travelled as scheduled.  Complainant submitted that complainants were not liable to pay the amount as demanded by opposite party -1.  Which amounts unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party 1 to 3.  Hence complainant filed this complaint for getting the relief as prayed for.

           After receiving notice, opposite party-1 filed version, stated that the complaint is not maintainable.   According opposite party -1 this commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  According to opposite party-1 there is no

-2-

branch office for the Airline in Kannur and moreover purchase of ticket will not render

cause of action for filing this complaint.  Opposite party -1 also contended that in the absence of any evidence to prove that complainant were holding ticket of opposite party -1 for travel from Tehran to Kuwait the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 2^nd opposite party filed separate version denied alleged incident and entire allegations of

the complainant.

                          Opposite party -3 neither filed version nor contest the case. Opposite party’s -4 notice returned as unclaimed and remained absent.

                        To prove the allegations in the compliant, the complainant filed his chief affidavit and 6 documents.  He has examined as PW1 and cross examined by opposite party -1 and opposite party – 2.   Through PW1 A1 to A6 were marked.  Ext. A1 is Registration Certificate, Ext. A2 is Invitations from Iran, Ext A3 series are Air Tickets 13 in Nos, Ext A4 protest letter to opposite parties, Ext A5 list of participants and Ext A6 receipt of cash.  From the side of complainant one Mr. Harish the co traveler of the complainant was examined as PW2 and Ext A7 to A9 were marked.  He was also made cross-examined for opposite party- 1 and opposite party-2. On the side of complainant one more witness Mr. Ajith.N.K – Manager operations, M/s Akbar Travels of India, Mangalore was examined as PW3.  He was cross-examined by opposite parties 1 and 2.  On the side of opposite side the Sales Manager of opposite party Mr. Rony Dominic Thomas filed chief affidavit and examined as DW1 and was made cross-examined for the complainant.            

                       After the evidence the learned counsels of complainant and 1^st opposite party filed written argument notes before the commission.  We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels and carefully gone through the records brought before us. 

                       The first plea raised by opposite party-1 in their written version is that this complaint is lack of territorial jurisdiction.  The contention raised by opposite party-1 that no cause of action arose within the area under the jurisdiction of this Forum and further submitted that no scrap of paper including number of the ticket or the PNR number nor produced any document to prove the prima facie case.

                     On perusal of documents on the side of complainant, Ext A3 series 13 Nos the Air tickets were issued by opposite party – 4 Keyes Travels, Royal City, Payyannur.  That shows the entire booking was made at Payyannur, the amount was

also paid at Payyannur.  As per the documents available on record, the airline tickets

-3-

13 in Nos were also purchased by the complainant from opposite party -3 ie the sub agents of opposite party -2 within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

                    In the argument note opposite party -1 raised another plea that the complainant nowhere stated that his society availed tickets or service from either of the opposite parities, so the society cannot file a complaint.   On going through the complaint we can realize that the society is registered under Societies Act having No: XXI of 1860 on 20/12/1989 Ext A1 and the tickets were booked by Artistes in that society.  Considering the above facts this complaint is maintainable before this Forum.

                      The next point to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

                      We have examined the entire material on record and oral evidence given by the witness before us. The facts of the case make it very clear that the complainants purchased total 13 in number paid Rs. 26790/- per ticket to the opposite parties and air tickets were delivered to them to travel from Mumbai to Tehran and return from Tehran to Mumbai.   The facts of the case also make it clear that while returning from Tehran on 14/10/2020, opposite party -1 demanded an additional sum of Irani Rial 26663000/- towards Airport Hotel booking charges at Kuwait airport and also denied boarding passes to the complainants to fly from Tehran to Kuwait unless they pay the hotel charges demanded by the opposite party No: 1. It is also made out that due to compulsion of opposite party – 1made a payment of Irani Rail 26663000/- and obtained boarding pass and traveled as scheduled.

                     On the other hand the contesting opposite party No: 1 submitted that at the time of booking the tickets opposite party -3 and 4 should be intimated about the transit.   So if complainant was not aware about transit rules, opposite parties 3 and 4 are liable and also contended that opposite party-2 as an agent of opposite parties 3 and 4, opposite party 2 also is liable.  Opposite party -1 is to be exonerated from the responsibility.

                   Here the admitted fact that opposite party -1 received the additional sum of Irani Rials 26663000/- from the complainant.  The explanation of opposite party-1 is that if the travelers were required to wait for more than 8 hrs in the airport during transit in terms of their own schedules of travel, they have to arrange accommodation at there at their own expenses.  This was informed to the complainants at the time of booking the tickets and they had agreed to bear the expenses for their accommodation.  But when they were asked to pay the amount they refused to pay the

-4-

same by saying that they will spent their time inside the airport but since it is against rules and norms, opposite party -1 compelled and collected the amount.

                For clarifying this point, evidence of PW3 (The operation Manager, Akbar Travels having experience of 25 years in the travel agency) can be considered.  Deposition of PW3 in page 3, 4 and 5 transit time F{X-bp-­mhpw F¶v flight company ap³Iq«n Adn-bpw. Transit time IqSp-X Ds­-¦n AXv before ticket issuance Adn-bpw. AXv ticket fare  D­m-Ipw. Ticket  accommodation charge DÄsIm-Ån-¨n-sÃ-¦n AXv under collection BWv.  It may be either omission or missing. That also not be informed to the passenger before travel.  If it is not intimated to passenger they will assume there is no such transit time.  If airline has not intimated the passenger about transit time it is a mistake on their part.  In the case if airlines has not intimated the passenger, “it is the mistake on the part of airlines”.  Boarding pass is the ticket to enter in a flight. If boarding pass is not given to passenger they must exit from the country within specified time.  It is an illegal position and they can be put to jail.

                Further in re- examination in page 7 “Lay out time exceed sN¿p-t¼mÄ hcp¶ expenses beer sNt¿-­Xv passenger BWv. AXv apt¼ Xs¶ airlines Adn-bn-t¡-­-XmWv passenger s\"".       

                Here there is no evidence that the complainants was informed about the transit time and also collection of additional charges.  In nowhere in Ext A3 seris Air ticket, mentioned about the collection of accommodation charge.

               Hence on the Testimony of PW3 we can realize that it is a very serious offence if not paying the accommodation charges.

                After having considered entire facts and circumstances we find that the complainant and 12 artistes in the organization suffered mental agony because of the non- information about the collection of accommodation charges before departure of the journey.

                The action of opposite parties 1 to 4 amounts to gross deficiency in service.  Hence complainant along with others 12 in the troupe are entitled to get relief.  From the evidence of PW3 and DW1 it is evidenced that the accommodation charge should be paid by the passengers themselves.  So we cannot direct opposite parties re-pay the accommodation charges.  Here the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for the mental agony and sufferings caused to the passengers.

               In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.  Opposite parties 1 to 4 are

-5-

directed to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation to each member of the Troup. (Total 13

members) for their mental agony and suffering.  (Total Rs. 260000/-).  Opposite

parties 1 to 4 are further directed to pay Rs. 13000/- as cost to the proceedings.  The order shall be complied with within one mouth from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainants are at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:-          

A1 – Registration Certificate

A2 – Invitations from Iran

A3 – Series are Air Tickets 13 in Nos

A4 – Protest letter to opposite parties

A5 – List of participants

A6 – Receipts of cash

     Sd/-                                         Sd/-                                   Sd/-

PRESIDENT                               MEMBER                              MEMBER

Ravi Susha                          Molykutty Mathew                      Sajeesh K.P

/ Forwarded by Order/

Senior Superintendent