By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Facts in brief:-<br /> Complainants along with their brother Rasheed visited the holy place of Makkah for performing 'Umra'. Their travel tickets were purchased from Air India through third opposite party. Their brother Rasheed had accompanied them as 'maharam' of female pilgrims. Their return journey from Jeddah to Calicut was scheduled on 08-12-2002 by Air India Flight. Before starting the return journey Rasheed contacted second opposite party to ascertain the status of the ticket and second opposite party informed the status to be OK. Subsequently second opposite party had given the PNR list which showed Abdul Rasheed No.16, 1st complainant No.35 and second complainant as No.65. On assurance given by second opposite party, complainants did not make any further enquiries. After Umra all three of them reached Jeddah Air port for taking their return flight to Calicut. To their surprise they were informed that only two tickets were of OK status and the ticket of Rasheed was in the wait list and not of OK status. It was also informed that Rasheed could not travel by the said flight. Complainants were not ready to undertake the travel in the absence of Rasheed. Though they presented their grievance to officials of Air India it was not heeded to. Officers of Air India directed them that if Rasheed wanted to travel by the same flight he had to purchase a first class ticket by paying additional amount of 1677 SR. Complainants and Rasheed contacted some Keralites at Jeddah and collected the amount from them. Rasheed purchased first class ticket by paying extra amount on 07-12-2002. Though this ticket was issued for travel from Jeddah – Mumbai to Calicut, opposite party informed him that he could travel only upto Mumbai. From Mumbai Rasheed had to purchase another ticket for his travel to Calicut by paying additional amount of Rs.4,350/-. That complainants and Rasheed suffered financial loss, mental agony and hardships due to the act of opposite party which amounts to deficiency in service. Rasheed had sent a notice to Air India stating his grievances to which opposite party replied expressing regrets for the happenings at Jeddah Airport. Later second opposite party informed that they were authorised to refund Rs.4,000/- to Rasheed. It is submitted that Abdul Rasheed the actual sufferer of the incident died on 17-8-2003 and complainants have preferred this complaint in their determination to fight against the negligence of opposite parties.<br /> 2. First and second opposite parties have filed a joint version denying the allegations in the complaint. It is submitted that complainants have no locus standi to file this complaint. That the complaint is filed alleging loss, inconveniences and hardships suffered by Abdul Rasheed who is no more. That complainants are not legalheirs and as such are not legally competent to file this complaint. It is further submitted that the ticket issued to Rasheed was not of OK status. Opposite party denies that they had given any verbal assurances through telephone that the status of the ticket was OK. Since there was no berth in Economy class on the relevant date, Air India was left with no other alternative but to suggest to Rasheed to purchase a first class ticket by paying the difference in rate between Economy and First Class. Rasheed paid 1677 SR on 07-12-02 and opted to travel from Jeddah to Mumbai by first class. In the same carrier there were no seats available from Mumbai to Calicut though ticket was issued for the same. Hence Rasheed had to purchase ticket from Indian Airlines for his onward journey from Mumbai to Calicut. On receiving request from Rasheed a sum of Rs.4,000/- was refunded for the unused sector of his ticket. Mr. Rasheed had accepted the amount as full settlement of his claim. His act would show that he never intended to file such a complaint in future. That there was no deficiency in service and complainants are not entitled to any reliefs.<br /> 3. Third opposite party has filed separate version. It is submitted that complainants are not competent to file this complaint for the alleged loss and hardships sustained by Abdul Rasheed. The purchase of air tickets is admitted. It is also submitted that even at the time of issuance of tickets opposite party had informed the party that one ticket was in wait list and the status was RQ. That all allegations are levelled against first and second opposite parties and therefore third opposite party is an unnecessary party to the proceedings. That third opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainants.<br /> 4. Evidence consists of affidavit filed by first complainant on behalf of second complainant also. Exts.A1 to A8 marked on the side of complainants. Counter affidavit filed by 1st and second opposite parties jointly. Third opposite party has filed separate counter affidavit. No documents marked on behalf of opposite parties. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.<br /> 5. Points for consideration:-<br /> (i) Whether complainants have locus standi to prefer this complaint.<br /> (ii) Whether opposite party is deficient in service.<br /> (iii) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> 6. Point (i):-<br /> All the three opposite parties have put forward the contention that complainants are not legally competent to file this complaint claiming reliefs for the loss and hardships suffered by deceased Abdul Rasheed. The tickets issued to complainants were of OK status and they travelled to and fro by the tickets issued by opposite parties. There is no cause for complain. It is their say that Abdul Rasheed who accompanied them as 'Maharam' for the purpose of performing 'Umra' was denied boarding by opposite party on the ground that his seat was not confirmed. It is also the case of complainants that Rasheed had to purchase first class air ticket by paying extra money of 1677 Saudi Riyal in order to travel in the same flight. Thus Rasheed travelled in first class along with complainants in the same flight upto Mumbai. From Mumbai Rasheed had to purchase another ticket of Indian Airlines to reach Calicut. In this complaint the prayer is for liquidated financial loss of Rs.24,809.40 being the value of the first class air ticket and the charges of air ticket from Mumbai to Calicut. They claim for compensation of Rs.30,000/- for hardships. Admittedly these tickets were purchased by Abdul Rasheed and he is the consumer. The cause of action if any has accrued only in favour of Abdul Rasheed . He is no more. As per the maximum 'actio personalis moritur cum persona', a personal action dies with the person. Under sec.2(1)b(v) of the Consumer Protection Act it is stated that in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative can prefer a complainant. The first complainant is the sister of deceased Abdul Rasheed and second complainant is his aunt, ie., father's sister. They are not the legalheirs or legal representative of the estate of deceased. Therefore they are definitely not entitled to file this complaint which is filed after death of the consumer. We are of the view that complainants are not competent to pursue a litigation for hardships and mental agony suffered by the deceased Abdul Rasheed. As regards the financial loss, admittedly Rs.4,000/- has been refunded by opposite party prior to his death. Complainants do not have any explanation why the legal heirs have not opted to file any complaint. For the foregoing reasons we find that complainants are not competent to file this complaint, and on such score this complaint is not maintainable.<br /> 7. Considering the merits of the case also there is no evidence to show that the return ticket issued to Abdul Rasheed was that of OK status. Complainants rely upon Ext.A4 which is the PNR list and contend that Abdul Rasheed is No.16 in this PNR confirmed list. On perusal it is evident that the person listed as No.16 is Abdul Rasheed K.C. whereas the brother of complainants is Abdul Rasheed.K. This is explicitly stated in his letter send to opposite party which is Ext.A3. Therefore opposite party cannot be found fault with for not providing seat in the flight.<br /> 8. From the above discussions the first point is found against the complainant. On the light of this finding we do not consider it necessary to go into further discussion of point (ii) and point (iii).<br /> 9. In the result we dismiss the complaint. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 24th day of September, 2008.<br /> Sd/- <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<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 A8<br /> Ext.A1series : Passenger Ticket and Baggage check (3 Nos.)<br /> Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the Passenger ticket issued by opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the request dated, 13-12-02 by complainant to<br /> 2nd opposite party.<br /> Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the PNR. <br /> Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the 'Umra” visa.<br /> Ext.A6 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 23-12-02 sent by opposite party to <br /> complainant.<br /> Ext.A7 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 21--1-03 sent by opposite party to <br /> complainant.<br /> Ext.A8 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 08-5-03 sent by opposite party to <br /> complainant.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER