By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Brief facts are as follows:-<br /> <br /> Complaint is preferred by father of complainant. The grievance of complainant is that even though she reached Calicut airport checking section by 6 A.M. On 28-10-1999 to leave for Dubai by Flight A1-727 Y at 9.00 hrs. she was snot allowed to go in the said flight by 2nd opposite party. That she and her child were restrained with dishonest intention by 2nd opposite party and this amounts to deficiency in service. She later traveled on 30-10-1999 to Dubai. She lost her job for not reporting in time and on compassionate ground was allowed to join with 700 dirham less salary. That 1st and 3rd opposite parties are liable for the deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party. Complainant claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/ with 6% interest per annum from 28-10-1999 from 1st and 3rd opposite parties and that these opposite parties can be left with option of realising the said amount from 2nd opposite party.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite parties filed version denying the allegations in the complaint. It is stated that complainant along with her child had reported only at 8.45 hrs at the checking station and she could not travel that day only due to her late arrival. That 2nd opposite party tried is level best to arrange travel of complainant by off loading any passenger by immigration but was not successful. He also offered the comlainant to travel on the evening flight to Abdudhabi and he even contacted her husband at Dubai. Only at the insistance of her husband to whom the Airport Manager talked that the ticket was confirmed on the A1 921 flight on 30-10-1999. This was all done in the presence of complainant and her father and another relative. The loss of 700 dirham in her salary is denied and that there is no deficiency in service. That complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by complainant. Exts.A1 to A3 marked. Opposite party has not filed any affidavit or documents. Both sides have not adduced any oral evidence. Due to vacancy in the post of President in 2003, there was no sitting of the Forum for a long time. This case came up first before us on 2-8-2007 and was finally heard on 8-2-2008. Points that<br /> <br /> arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party.<br /> (ii) If so reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 4. Point (i):- The complaint is preferred on behalf of the complainant Smt. Rajani by her father. An authorisation and power of attorney executed by Smt.Rajani/complainant is produced. The authorisation dated, 28-10-1999 is not attested by Gazetted Officer or Notary Public. The power of attorney dated, 04-6-2000 is not sufficiently stamped. Since father has preferred the complaint on behalf of daughter and to avoid being over technical, we consider the complaint filed by father maintainable.<br /> <br /> 5. According to complainant his daughter Rajani had confirmed ticket to travel to Dubai by flight No.A1 727 Y at 9.00am on 28-10-1999. She could not travel by this flight due to the intentional act of 2nd opposite party. She thereafter reached Dubai on 30-10-1999 by another flight of opposite parties. All the allegations in the complaint are levelled against 2nd opposite party, Sri.Vijayakumar who is the Airport Manager, Calicut Airport, Karippur. The evidence tendered through affidavit is that on 28-10-1999 while she reached at the Air India Checking counter, 2nd opposite party came there and asked her to come to his cabin. That 2nd opposite party told her that she could go by the Abudhabi flight. She and her child were thus restrained by 2nd opposite party with dishonest intention which is clear deficiency in service. These allegations are refuted by opposite parties in their version. No evidence is tendered by opposite parties. The moot question to be considered here is whether the dishonest intentional act on the part of 2nd opposite party would amount to deficiency in service. Complainant has no allegation of any negligence or delinquency in duty on the part of opposite party. Under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act compensation can be awarded for loss or injury due to negligence of the opposite party. Therefore intentional and malicious acts, are outside the purview of Consumer Forum. Applying the ratio of the decision in 1996 (I) CPJ 143 (NC) R.R. Gopal @ Rajagopal Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, where it is held, “The intentional act is the natural consequence of something consciously done. The Legislative by using the words “deficiency” and “negligence” clearly intended that the remedy for intentional and malicious acts are outside the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums under the Act”. “In fact negligence is the ante-thesis of intention and so intention is not an element of negligence. The reliefs which could be granted under Section 14(1)(d) is solely depend on the establishment of the negligence in the performance of deficiency in service”. Even though relief is claimed against 1st and 3rd opposite parties complainant has no allegations against these opposite parties. For the above reasons we are unable to conclude that 2nd opposite party has committed any deficiency in service. This point found against the complainant.<br /> <br /> 6. Point (ii):- On the light of finding of 1st point this point also found against complainant.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result, complaint dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 26th day of March, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3<br /> Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the flight ticket dated, 28-10-1999 in favour of.<br /> complainant<br /> Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the flight ticket dated, 28-10-1999 in favour of <br /> complainant's daughter.<br /> Ext.A3(series) : Users fee receipt for Rs.500/- (2 Nos.)<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />