KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 370/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 06-01-2010 PRESENT: JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER APPELLANTS 1. The Managing Director, Air India Limited, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. 2. The Regional Manager, Air India Limited, M.G. Road, Ernakulam- 682 016. (Rep. by Adv. M/s Joseph & Kuriyan) Vs RESPONDENTS 1. M.M. Saleem, S/o M.H. Mohammed, Madapattuparambil House, Pannithadam, Chiramanangad P.O., Thrissur District, represented by Power of Attorney Holder, M.H. Mohammed. 2. Olympus Travels Pvt. Ltd., Trinity Complex, S.T. Nagar, Thrissur – 680 001. (R1 rep. by Adv. Sri. A.V.M. Salahudeen) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2/Air India authorities in OP 363/02 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards monetary loss and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 600/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased the air ticket from the 3rd opposite party the authorized travel agent of Air India for flight No. 701 of 30-04-2001 from Cochin to Abudhabi. He arrived at the airport in time ie, 3 hours before. But he was not issued the boarding pass and was not permitted to board and further he was ill-treated. He could not join duty in time and lost leave and hence has claimed Rs. 25,000/- towards monetary loss with interest at 12%; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation etc. 3. It is the contention of the opposite parties that opposite party 1 and 2/appellants on checking the list of passengers who are to board in the flight, it was found that the name of the complainant is mentioned as M.K. Saleem whereas the name in the passport is M.M. Saleem. He was asked to wait. Hence the complainant got agitated and left without waiting. There was seat in the flight and had he waited he could have been accommodated. 4. The 3rd opposite party, the travel agent denied his involvement in the matter. 5. Evidence adduced consisted of Ext.P1 to P4. 6. Ext.P1 is the lawyer notice and P4 the reply notice. The contention in the reply notice is the same as mentioned in the version. The Forum has rightly absolved the opposite party No. 3 travel agent; and rightly so. The Forum has noted that in the passenger list produced by the appellant, the name of M.M. Saleem is also mentioned and it is mentioned as cancelled. 7. We find that the case of the complainant that he was issued with a ticket stands not denied. Although it is mentioned that there was seat in the flight to accommodate the complainant, the same is not proved by any evidence. We also find that in the photo copy of the ticket produced, as seen in the lower court records, the name of the passenger is mentioned as M.M. Saleem. Even if in the list of passengers the name is written as M.K. Saleem it is not on account of any lapse on the part of the complainant. The case of the appellant that the complainant was asked to wait etc. cannot be believed in the circumstances. It appears that there was some foul play or that the situation as contended by the appellants were not properly explained to the complainant. The case of the complainant that he suffered much mental agony and other difficulties on account of the fact that he could not travel on the particular flight is only likely. He hails from a suburb in Thrissur District. In the circumstances, we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Sr. | 
