D.o.F:11/8/09

D.o.O: 04/02/2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.185/09

                   Dated this, the 4th day of February  2010

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                                : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI                         : MEMBER

Smt.Kathreena Mathew,

W/o T.C.Mathew,

R/at Thekkekara House,

Najayapilli PO, Kothamangala,                        : Complainant

Ernakulam Dt.

(Adv.Jacob Joseph,Kasaragod)

The Manager,

Moulavi Travels,

Rly.Station Road,Kasaragod.                             : Opposite party

( Adv.B.F.Abdul Rahiman,$

Adv.Manikandhan Nambiar,Kasaragod)

                                                                  ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT

         Tersely stated, the allegation of the complainant is that she reserved an Air Ticket to travel in Kuwait Airways on 15/11/2008 from Kochi to Kuwait and return ticket on 15/2/2009 from Kuwait to Cochin.  She traveled in the sector Kochi-Kuwait on the day proposed but returned to Kochi before the day to which she booked the ticket and she could not use the return ticket obtained from opposite party.  Hence she requested opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.12500/-, that is the price of the unused ticket.  But opposite party refused to returned the amount.  Hence the complaint claiming refund of the ticket value of Rs.12500/- with compensation and costs.

    According to opposite party, they are only an agent of Kuwait Airways and the price of the ticket has been collected by Kuwait Airways.  They are getting only a meager amount as commission.  The ticket is issued by Kuwait Airways and they are operating the airline.  Hence the Kuwait Airways is a necessary party to the complaint.  The Galileo Reservation Ticket is  issued to the complainant as per the rules and regulation of Air Line Company.  As per the refund rules one way fully utilized ticket is not entitled for any refund.  The complainant used the ticket on one way.  It is made clear to the complainant at the time of booking the ticket itself that the ticket fare is not refundable.  This is printed on the ticket itself.  The early return of the complainant is not a reason to ask for refund and the opposite party is no way responsible for the early return of the complainant.  The opposite party is only a middleman and the contest of the complainant is with Kuwait Airways.  There is no responsibility for opposite party after issuing the ticket and there is no deficiency in service on their part.  Hence the complaint deserves a dismissal.

    On behalf of the complainant her son Siby Mathew filed affidavit and Exts.A1 to A3 marked.  Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence.  Both sides heard and the documents perused.

    The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Shri Manikandhan Nambiar vehementally argued that the Kuwait Airlines is the airline to whom the opposite party had remitted the amount towards the ticket fare and  the Kuwait Air ways is a necessary party to the proceedings.  He further submitted that in the absence of Kuwait Airways the opposite party has no liability.  He invited our attention to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble NCDRC reported in 2002 (1) CPR 3 (NC) in the case of Namita Nigam vs. Janta Travels.  In the said decision, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that in the absence of the Airlines (in that case  Air India was the airlinery ) no liability could be foisted on the travel agent.  The facts are circumstances of the said case are more or less identical.   There also the claim of the complainant was for the refund of the unused portion of the journey to which the ticket was obtained.  But the Hon’ble National Commission held that in the absence of Air India no liability could be foisted on the travel agent.

      Applying the principle enunciated in the above matter we are also of the view that in the absence of Kuwait Airways who is  a necessary party to the proceedings no liability can be fastened on the  opposite party and the complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

    In the result complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sd/                                                           Sd/                                        Sd/

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Exts:

A1-copy of ticket receipt

A2-Lawyer notice

A3- 24/2/2009-Reply notice

 Sd/                                                            Sd/                                      Sd/

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

eva/                                                     /Forwarded by Order/

                                                             SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT