Sri. Santhosh Kesavnath P., President.

 

Petitioner had to give an invited talk at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India and to participate at the all India Research Scholars’ Meet at IIT Kanpur. According to the petitioner the meet was all India competition for the best research paper presentation award.   One of the research scholars at CMS Pala campus, Miss. Nicy Sebastian got selection for the competition. Petitioner booked E-ticket through first opposite party. First opposite party booked the ticket and issued E-ticket on 14^th October 2008. The

-2-

passengers name   shown in the ticket were  as Mr. Mathai A.M, Nicy Sebastian. When there was a change in the timing of the flight in Lucknow-Mumbai sector. First opposite party rebooked the flight and issued a new ticket . The ticket is for flights in the following four sectors. Kochi-Delhi, Delhi-Kanpur, Lucknow-Mumbai, Mumbai-Kochi.   One week before the departure petitioner had reconfirmed the flights with the first opposite party. Later another research scholar of  the petitioner’s institution, Mr. Dilip kumar also got selected for the research scholars meet at IIT Kanpur. He booked his E-ticket through TCI Kochi.   On 5^th December 2008, petitioner, Nicy Sebastian and Dilipkumar reached  from Kochi to Delhi. They reached Delhi around 10.30 A.M. Immediately they went to air India check in counter to obtain boarding passes for the next leg of the flight ie.   Delhi- Kanpur. Due to the surprise of the petitioner the   passengers traveling to Kanpur from Delhi on the same flight shown in the ticket issued to petitioner were one Sayed/Rizwan/Mr. and Miss Nicy Sebastian. Second opposite party stated that they can  issue boarding passes only under these names.     Second opposite party said that as per the agreement with booking agencies only the booking agency could change the names and the air line could not do it. Second opposite party gave a computer print out showing the passengers traveling from Delhi to Kanpur . According to  the petitioner he himself and co-  passengers under gone mental and physical torture for ½ hours at Delhi air port. Finally petitioners students Nicy Sebastian and Dilipkumar could fly to Kanpur. Second opposite party allow the petitioner to buy a fresh open ticket at the regular price of Rs. 8210/- and allowed petitioner to wait till flight was closed . On condition that  if Sayed/Rizwan did not turn up then only the petitioner give the seat.

-3-

 When the petitioner returned from Kanpur on 12..12..2008 petitioner informed the first opposite party   to refund Rs. 8210/- along with compensation for the mental agony. First opposite party replied that they are not responsible and their  whole seller through whom they booked the flights,  were responsible. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction to the opposite party to refund Rs. 8210/-,  being charge,  for compensation along with Rs. 23,913/- being the compensation and the cost of the proceedings.

1^st opposite party entered appearance and  second and third opposite party was imp leaded at the instance of 1^st opposite party.  Second opposite party filed version and  the 3^rd opposite party was set ex-parte. First opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the first opposite party  they are  only E-ticket agent doing service  as an agent. 1^st opposite party    obtain air ticket for the passengers from various air lines. First opposite party issued the disputed ticket through Arzoo.com, Navin Mail Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., Samruddhi Venture Park, Mumbai. First opposite party admitted the issuance of the flight tickets . According to the first opposite party they are an agent of the 3^rd opposite party and  there is no cause of action against  first opposite party. Whenever a   customer approaches and requests to procure him an air ticket, as an agent of 3^rd opposite party,   First opposite party logs on the site of 3^rd opposite party in search of flight  first to get the list of the lowest fare airline tickets available.  With the consent of the passengers ticket is booked and a print out of the E-ticket is handed over to the passengers.    The petitioner and the agent  check out the airline, PNR, flight details, passenger name and E-ticket number.

-4-

 The responsibility of the first opposite party ends there.   It is the 3^rd opposite party who is   responsible to see that the passengers travel as per the schedule. According to the petitioner, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite  party. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Second opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the 3^rd opposite party they were not involved in booking the complainant’s ticket and the same was done by the travel agent. As per the records available to  3^rd opposite party. One Mr.  A.M. Mathai and Miss. Nicy Sebastian were booked   ticketed and traveled by IC 466 of 5..12..2008.  Dr. Mathai and Nicy Sebastian were booked the ticket on 14..10..2008 at 1625 hours under PNR RC 6 RU 8 for sector Delhi/Kanpur for flight IC 7801 . The booking was cancel led on  the same day because the PNR was not ticketed. No other booking was done for Dr. Mathai in the above flight. As per the history shown in  the PNR only one mobile contact is given in all PNRs ie. 9495427558. Schedule change was informed to the above number by second opposite party’s call centre. PNR RDPXRR originally had two name Nicy Sebastian and Sayed Rizwan. The PNR was split by the agent and Sayed Rizwan’s booking was cancelled. PNR RDPXRR contained only one name Miss. Nicy Sebastian but two tickets were ticketed.     The ticket of Sayed Rizwan,  whose booking was cancelled by the agent, the agent being M/s. Spring Travels, Delhi.  Since there was no booking and no ticket issued in the name of Dr. Mathai for Delhi – Kanpur as the flight was full  petitioner was asked to wait and eventually he was provided a seat on same flight on the purchase of a fresh ticket. The ticket agent was not bothered to  reply to the

-5-

first opposite party, the agent in Kerala, through whom the passenger booked the tickets. First opposite party has not responded to the opposite party’s letter dtd: 22..5..2009 requesting them to provide the details of PNR and ticket numbers of Dr. A.M Mathai and Miss. Nicy Sebastian for travel for  sector Delhi- Kanpur. Second opposite party contented that the authority conferred on the agent of airline is only to sell and issue the tickets in accordance with the flight operations, schedules and timing notified and on  other guidelines given by the airlines. Any wrongful act of the travel agent is beyond the scope of the limited  authority conferred on the agent. According to the second opposite party there is no cause of action against second opposite party. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for determinations are:

i)                    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii)                   Relief and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A7 documents on the side of the petitioner.

-6-

petitioner and  one Nicy Sebastian.  E-ticket number of the petitioner is shown as 0583172165144. Petitioner produced a copy of the computer print issued by the second opposite party.      Said document is marked as Ext. A2. In Ext. A2   name of the passenger with ticket No. 583172165144 is shown as Sayed Rizwan. Petitioner produced   copy of the E-ticket purchased by petitioner from the Air India from Delhi to Kanpur said document is produced and same is marked as Ext. A4. From the evidence adduced by the petitioner and from the version submitted by the second opposite party it is an admitted  fact that on 5..12..2008 when the petitioner along with the co-passengers reached Delhi as per  records of the second opposite party one Sayed Rizwan is traveling from Kanpur to  Delhi in the  E-ticket  . issued to the petitioner as per Ext. A1 (a).   So, Definitely  act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. The contention put forth by the first opposite party is that first opposite party is only the ticketing agent of Arzoo.com and Arzoo.com is  responsible for the hardship caused   to the petitioner. First opposite party filed a petition as IA 784/09 to implead the Arzoo.com in the party array. Said petition was allowed and the Arzoo.com was impleaded.  Notice was issued from the Forum but the 3^rd opposite party had not entered appearance or  filed any version so 3^rd opposite party was set ex-parte. In our view the petitioner purchased the ticket from the first opposite party. Further more   petitioner had no direct dealings with 3^rd opposite party. Since the privity of contract is between the petitioner and first opposite party the petition is liable for the deficiency committed by them.  Without saying what had happened had caused much inconvenience and mental sufferings to the petitioner. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

-7-

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and

pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th   day of September, 2010.

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- 

 Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                  Sd/-

 Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

Ext. A1:            Copy of the E-ticket dtd: 14..10..2008

Ext. A1(a)        Copy of E-ticket dtd: 14..10..2008

Ext. A1(b)        Copy of E-ticket vide PNR PCWOZO

Ext. A1(c)        Receipt of payment

Ext. A1(d)        Receipt of payment

Ext. A2:            Computer print of second opposite party Dtd: 5..12..2008

Ext. A3:            Loading pass in Air India

Ext. A4:            Copy of Air ticket dtd: 5..12..2010

Ext. A5:            Copy of the notice issued by the petitioner to first opposite party

Ext. A6:            Reply dtd: 18..12..2008 issued by first opposite party to the petitioner.

Ext. A7:            Receipt Dtd: 15..10..2008.

By Order,