SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of  Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the  opposite parties to pay Rs.1,10,722/- as the flight charges along with Rs.1,00,000/-  as compensation for mental agony  to the complainant for the deficiency of service  on their part.

 The case of the complainant in brief:

   The  complainant and her husband  intended to participate the tour package Chennai Maa-Denpasar Bali offered by the OPs.  The tour  package is for the period  from 27/11/2017 to 1/12/2017.  The complainant and her husband accepted the tour package and booked the same.  The flight service is that of 1^st OP.  The charge fixed by 2^nd OP& 3^rd OP for the 5 day holiday tour package consists of 4 nights and 5 days is Rs.91,000/- and was also paid in time.  The complainant and her husband  were residing in Bangalore at that time, the price charged to Bangalore to Chennai and Chennai to Bangalore by the Spice Jet Air lines  is Rs.6010/-.  There was news of  volcano eruption, but OPs 2&3 assured that there is no such calamity.  Then the complainant and her husband reached at Chennai by Spice Jet airlines on 26/11/2017 and stayed at Chennai  and spending on Rs.3026/-.  But the tour package is cancelled by OPs.  The complainant and her husband constrained to leave Chennai on 27/11/2017 by Indigo Airlines on payment of Rs.10,686/-.  The holiday package was cancelled and the OPs failed to compensate the complainant.  The Ops 2&3 received the flight charge from complainant and her husband but not informed the complainant  in time  for cancelling  the tour. The act of  OPs the complainant and her husband has caused  much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

      After filing the complaint notice issued to all OPs. All OP’s received the notice and filed their  version  before the commission .

    1^st OP contended that he is an unnecessary party to this complaint and no whisper in the complaint that any act or service of the 1^st OP was responsible for the hardship to the complainant.  The grievance of complainant arose since  OPs 2&3 have cancelled the flight.  The refund  of the amount is  also  liable to OPs 2&3.  There is no deficiency or  anything that warrant cause of  action for the complainant against this 1^st OP.  So the complaint against 1^st OP may be dismissed. 

          OPs 2&3 contended that they are merely a facilitator of service on behalf of 3^rd party service providers.  The air ticket were booked in the 1^st OP Airlines and accommodations were booked in the separate hotels who are  third party service providers.  OPs stated that the refund of the ticket amount is not available in this case and  offer that the complainant has the option to reschedule the ticket for a new date.  Ops 2&3  are representative of 1^st OP and 1^st OP is liable to refund the  amount to complainant, so the complaint against OPs2&3 are also may be exonerated.

      On the  basis of the rival contentions  by  the pleadings the following issues   were framed for  considerations

1. Whether there is any deficiency  of service on the part of  the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is  entitled for  any relief?
3.  Relief and cost.

       The   evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW 1 and   Exts.A1 to 6  were  marked.   On OP’s  side  no oral evidence. Exts.B1&B2 documents marked.

Issue No.1:

            The  complainant adduced evidence  before the commission by submitting  her  chief  affidavit  in lieu  of her chief examination to the  tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying  the contentions in the version.  PW1 was cross  examined  by 1^st OP.  The  documents Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on her part to substantiate her case. The tour  package was fixed  on 27/11/2017 to 1/12/2017 for the 5 holiday tour package.  The complainant paid Rs.91,000/- as the charge.  Due to volvano eruption the tour package was cancelled by OPs.  At the time of evidence PW1 deposed  that “ Tour package ന്ർറെ തുക മുഴുവൻ കൈ മാറിയത് 2,3 എതൃകക്ഷികൾക്കാണ്.1-ാം എതൃകക്ഷിയുമായി direct ആയി സാമ്പത്തിക ഇടപാടുകളൊന്നും നടത്തിയിട്ടില്ല. Tour package ലെ കാര്യങ്ങളെല്ലാം തീരുമാനിക്കുന്നത് OPs 2&3 ആണ് . In Ext.A1 is the brochure of E -mail notice to clearly shows that the arrangements of tour programme done by OPs 2&3.  In Ext.A2 is the e-mail copy of payment fare charges Rs.91,000/- paid to  OP.NO.2.  In Ext.A3 is the fare charge of Spice Jet Air lines Bengaluru to Chennai and Chennai to Bangaluru for Rs.6010/-.  In Ext.A4 is the return ticket and Ext.A5 is the hotel confirmation voucher and incurred for Rs.3026/-. In Ext.A6 is the lawyer notice issued by complainant to all OPs.  All OPs received the notice and not send a reply or compensate the amount.  So the complainant and her husband sustained huge amount for flight charges and other hotel  expenses also. On OPs side produce 2 documents.  In Ext.B1 is the authorization and  Ext.B2 is  the travel guidelines issued by 1^st OP.  But OPs 2&3 were not  turn up and not produced any evidence before the commission  to prove their case.    The act of OPs the complainant and her husband  caused much mental agony and financial loss. So the OPs are directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  So  there is deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Therefore we hold that  opposite parties 2&3 are liable to pay the  flight ticket fare and other charges to the complainant. Hence the  issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue  No.2& 3: 

      As discussed above the cancellation of flight  due to volcano eruption without giving prior notice to the complainant and her husband within time.  The complainant and her husband sustained huge loss for flight ticket charge and other expenses.  Therefore we hold that  OP 2&3  are liable to pay the flight ticket charge and other expenses.  Therefore we hold that  opposite parties 2&3 are liable to pay Rs.1,10,722/- to the complainant.  Moreover opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and  severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.  Thus the issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered.

       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 2&3 are jointly and  severally  liable to pay  the flight ticket fare and other  expenses of Rs.1,10,722/- to the complainant in addition to opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and  severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost within  30 days  of  receipt  of this order.   In default the amount of Rs.1,10,722/- caries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization . Failing which the  complainant is  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1- E-mail (Brochure copy)

A2-E mail  copy of payment Rs.91,000

A3-Payment of Rs.6010/-

A4- return ticket

A5-Hotel receipt

A6-copy of lawyer notice

B1- Authorization

B2- Travel Guidelines

PW1-Sanju Ravindran- complainant

Sd/                                                                Sd/                                                 Sd/

PRESIDENT                                  MEMBER                                     MEMBER

Ravi Susha                               Molykutty Mathew                             Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                           /Forwarded by Order/

                                                         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR