Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he is a Managing Director of Citadel Architectural Solutions Private Limited. The complainant is holding responsible position in the Company and he has to travel abroad for attending business meetings of the Company. He had booked a flight ticket on 19th July, 2010 for travel on 26th July, 2010 from Bangkok to Penang under booking ID FLTINTI000130005158 on Air Asia (FD-3545) through the opponent. On the same day, he had also booked the flight for travel from Penang to Kuala Lumpur under ID No. FLTINTI000130005658 for 27th July, 2010 through the opponent. The ticket charges were debited on the same day. The complainant reached at Bangkok International Airport on 26th July, 2010. While check in for the flight Bangkok to Penang, he came to know that airline authorities has cancelled the ticket due to non payment of the fare by the opponent. The complainant immediately contacted his Mumbai office from Bangkok Airport. One Mr.Santosh had a telephonic talk with the opponent customer executive Ms.Sangeeta. She told that ticket is OK as per the record. This was wrong and the complainant was not allowed to check in. He could not find any other flight on that day. Therefore, he had to cancel all onward bookings. Mr.Santosh from the complainant’s office sent letter 26th July, 2010 to the opponent. The complainant purchased one way ticket from Bangkok to Mumbai on 26th July, 2010 costing Rs.13,500/- extra. Due to negligence of the opponent, the complainant has to cancel his business meetings and returned back to Mumbai. All the tickets purchased by him for further travel had to be forfeited. The complainant was compelled to spend the entire day at airport. The complainant had urgent business meetings in Penang and Kuala Lumpur, which he could not attend due to the negligence of the opponent thereby Company suffered huge business loss. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the opponent by email. There was correspondence in between the parties. The opponent is liable to compensate the complainant for mental agony, hardship and business loss. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint recovery of amount Rs.10 Lakhs for business loss. He has also claimed damages of Rs.1 Lakh for mental agony, torture and harassment. He has prayed for reimbursement of the ticket fares and cost of this proceeding Rs.20,000/-.
2) The opponent has filed written statement. It is submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The complainant is not the ‘consumer’ u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The services of the opponent were availed by the complainant as the Managing Director of the Company for commercial purpose in order to promote its business and attend the business meetings. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The complainant has stated that the Company suffered loss towards business and claimed compensation of Rs.10 Lakh which is commercial loss. There is no deficiency in service. As per the agreement between the parties, in case of reservation not getting confirm for any reason the opponent will process the refund. There was technical problem therefore there was non performance of the service offered. The opponent showed willingness to refund the amount immediately and also free trip air ticket to Malaysia. The complainant was adamant. Notice was issued by the Manager of the Company. It was replied. In spite of offer by the opponent, the complainant has filed this false complaint. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
3) Both the parties filed their affidavit of evidence. The complainant also filed affidavit in rejoinder. Both the parties filed their written notes of argument. At the time of oral argument, the opponent remained absent therefore the learned advocate for the complainant was heard. After going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’ u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ? | No |
2) | Whether the complaint is maintainable ? | No |
3) | Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed ? | No |
4) | What Order? | As per final order |
REASONS
4) As to Point No. 1 to 3 :- In the complaint and affidavit of evidence, the complainant has stated that he is working as Managing Director of Citadel Architectural Solutions Private Limited. He is holding responsible position in the Company and he has to travel abroad for attending the business meetings of the Company. He had booked the flight tickets on 19th July, 2010 for travel on 26th July, 2010 from Bangkok to Penang under booking ID FLTINTI000130005158 on Air Asia (FD-3545) through the opponent. On the same day, he had also booked the flight for travel from Penang to Kuala Lumpur under ID No. FLTINTI000130005658 for 27th July, 2010 through the opponent. The ticket charges were debited on the same day. The complainant reached at Bangkok International Airport on 26th July, 2010. While check in for the flight Bangkok to Penang, he came to know that airline authorities has cancelled the ticket due to non payment of the fare by the opponent. In para 11 of the complaint and para 9 & 10 of the written notes of argument, the complainant has stated that due to negligence on the part of the opponent he has to cancel to his business meetings and return back to Mumbai. He had very urgent business meetings in Penang and Kuala Lumpur and due to cancellation of those meetings a huge business loss was suffered by the Company. Thus, it is clear that tickets were booked for attending business meetings. In the affidavit in rejoinder also, the complainant has stated that tickets were booked for going to Penang to attend the meeting with Managing Director of G.B.Plastics at Penang. The complainant was confident of obtaining orders of atleast 20,000 Sq.Mts. of plastic extrusion embossed sheets with sales revenue of Rs.Two Crores and a profit margin of 25%to 30%. Thus, the services of the opponent were hired for commercial purpose. As per Sec.2(1)(d)(ii), consumer does not include a person who avails services for commercial purpose. Admittedly, the complainant has availed the services for commercial purpose therefore the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ this complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed from this Forum. The learned advocate for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Gujarat in the case of Ashok Kumar Bhailalbhai Thakkar –Versus- Air India Limited reported in 2011(1) CPR 51, Hon’ble Uttar Pradesh State Commission in the case of M/s. Anand Shree Enterprises –Versus- Sri Niranjan Saxena & Anr. reported in 2011(2) CPR 232. As the complainant is not a ‘consumer’, the above cited judgments are not applicable in this case.
5) Thus, the complainant is not a ‘consumer’. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed from this Forum. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1) Complaint stands dismissed.
2) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced
Dated 2nd January, 2014
