O R D E R

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite parties. 

                   2. The complainant’s case is as follows:  The complainant was an Army officials and his power of attorney holder is appearing before this Forum for and on behalf of him.  According to the complainant, as a result of an emergency call of the Army Superiors he decided to go to Srinagar by Air.  He approached the 3^rd opposite party and arranged a flight ticket for an amount of Rs.19,981/- for the date for the journey on 11.10.2014.  In the flight ticket, it is endorsed that it is a flight from Kochi to Delhi as A1 466 departure time 0725 hours and arrival at 10.25 hrs.  It is also endorsed that another flight from Delhi to Srinagar and its departure at 12 hours and the arrival at 13.30 hrs.  He further stated that he reported the Kochi Airport prior to 1 ½ hours of the flight departure for the purpose of security checking.  After the security checking the Air India authorities informed that, he could not travel in the schedule flight, as he developed conjunctivitis and thus his ticket was cancelled for the journey.  According to the complainant, he had no conjunctivitis as stated by the Air India authorities the reddish colour in the left eye caused due to hurt by a country stick when the complainant made some clearing work in his property.  As a result of the denial of the journey he could not rejoin the service of the Army as scheduled and he had to suffer disciplinary action including cut in his salary.  The Air India authorities direct the complainant to approach the 2^nd opposite party for the return of the amount.  It is stated that the 2^nd opposite party was ready to pay only a sum of Rs.2,405/- from the total payment of Rs.19,981/-.  According to him, the opposite parties have no authority to deny the travel as stated above and the complainant suffered a lot from the superiors of the army officials for his absence.  The complainant filed this complaint for the return of the air ticket amount of Rs.19,981/-, compensation, cost etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint and decided to issue notice to the opposite parties 1 to 3 for their appearance.  Opposite party 1 and 2 entered appearance and opposite party 3 declared exparte in this case.  Opposite party 1 and 2 filed a joined version as follows:  According to the opposite party 1 and 2 the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are admitted that the complainant booked ticket as alleged in the complainant for the journey schedule on 11.10.2014.  At the time of checking it was observed that the complainant’s eyes were unusually red and suspected that the complainant had suffering conjunctivitis.  The complainant was requested to consult the medical officer stationed at the airport for a medical test.  It is contended that the complainant refused to consult the doctor concerned and inform that he will consult another doctor outside the airport.  It is also inform that if the complainant failed to consult a doctor as stated his ticket charge also would be lost.  It is also contended that the complainant had never checked in for the flight and the above incident happened in checking counter and not at the boarding counter.  It is further contended that the complainant had booked an LTC ticket.  The cancellation or refund conditions of an LTC ticket are much lower than that of a normal flight ticket.  The allegation that there is deficiency of service and which all service from the part of opposite parties are also denied by this opposite parties.  Therefore, this opposite parties prayed to dismiss the above complaint with cost to the opposite parties. 

                   4. We peruse the complaint, version and other records before us and framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether this case is maintainable before the Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant.
3. Regarding relief and cost?

         5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant’s power of attorney holder has filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A4.  Ext.A1 is the Special Power of Attorney executed by the complainant.  Ext.A2 is the E-Air Ticket No.0982109507757.  Ext.A3 is the cancelled PNR.  Ext.A4 is the bank statement.  On the other hand, opposite parties 1 and 2 have not adduced any oral evidence on their side but they produced and marked Ext.B1 as their evidence.  Ext.B1 is the general conditions of carriage for passengers and baggage of Air India Ltd.  When we peruse the proof affidavit filed by the power of attorney holder of the complainant (PW1) it reveals that he deposed almost all the material aspect of the complaint in this case.  He deposed in the chief examination that due to the emergency call of the Army superiors the complainant opted a flight journey on 01.10.2014 and due to the illegal attitude of the opposite party he could not travel on 11.10.2014 and failed to attend the Srinagar Army Camp in time.  It is again deposed that the allegation of the opposite party 1 and 2 to the effect that he was suffering conjunctivitis was against the actual fact.  He had no conjunctivitis nor any symptom of it.  The reason for the reddish colour was due   to a hurt caused by a country stick when he intervened clearing works his property.  As a result, he suffered disciplinary action including the cut in salary.  According to his testimony, it is deposed that all these act of the opposite parties are deficiency in service on their part and the opposite parties are compensated to him for all these grievances.  Though the opposite party 1 and 2 did not adduce any oral evidence but they produced and marked Ext.B1 as stated above.  After the closure of evidence, we heard both learned counsels appearing for the complainant and opposite party 1 and 2 in this case. 

          6. Point No.1:- When we peruse evidence adduced by the complainant and opposite party in this case we can easily arrived a conclusion that complainant arranged an air ticket by e.mail facility from Kochi-Srinagar and remitted Rs.19,981/- for this journey.  The date of the journey is 11.12.2014 at 07.25 hours.  In the light of this admitted evidence it is clear that opposite party received consideration of Rs.19,981/- from the complainant for the said journey and opposite parties are service provider of the complainant.  Hence we can safely conclude that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties.  Point No.1 found accordingly. 

          7. Point 2 and 3:- For the sake of convenience of this case we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  From the available evidence before us it is clear that for the journey schedule on 11.10.2014 the complainant reported the Kochi aerodrome in time, for security checking etc.  At the time of the security checking it found that the left eye of the complainant seen reddish and the airport authorities informed that as the complainant developed conjunctivitis and due to this reason the journey was not allowed.  On the other side, the complainant seriously contended that he had no conjunctivitis as stated by the opposite parties and the reason for the reddish colour of his left eye was due to a hurt caused by a country stick when he is doing some clearing works in his property.  It is clear that the conjunctivitis is a contagious disease if a person suffered this kind of disease, no authorities could allow the said person to travel in any circumstances.  But here we have to ascertain that whether the complainant suffered conjunctivitis as alleged by the opposite parties.  According to the opposite parties, the complainant purposefully evaded from a medical test directed by them.  At the time of cross examination it is also come out in evidence that even for the cancellation of ticket the complainant was not ready to stick on the aerodrome and he intended to contact opposite party 3, the Chief Agent of Air India, at Thiruvalla for that purpose.  If there any bonafide in the contention of the complainant with regard to his contention what prevented him to undergone a medical check up at airport itself.  The evading nature of the complainant in this behalf is a genuine doubt with regard to complainant’s contention.  Moreover, the complainant can very well approach any qualified doctor on such day or even the subsequent day for a medical check up and furnish a medical certificate to support the contention of the complainant.  As the complainant of this case, it is the duty of the complainant to prove the reason of the reddishness of his left eye before the Forum.  The complainant miserably failed to prove his contention with substantial proof.  As stated earlier for adducing evidence in complainant’s favour his father one K.S. Varghese appeared before the Forum with the strength of a special power of attorney (Ext.A1).  Ext.A2 is an ‘itinerary receipt’ in duplicate it explained the details of the route, journey, reported time and also give details of the amount received as the ticket fare. The Ext.A3 receipt shows that the reason for the cancellation of ticket and the ticket details.  It is clear from Ext.A3 that due to conjunctivitis the ticket is cancelled and it also reveals that no medical check up was conducted by the complainant.  This Ext.A3 is produced and marked by the complainant but the contents is not supporting in the complainant’s case.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that due to the cancellation of the above said flight journey the complainant being an army person suffered and faced disciplinary action and also suffered financial loss also.  In order to substantiate this contention the complainant produced and marked Ext.A4.  When we examine the Ext.A4 it is come out in evidence that an amount of Rs.24,329/- is deducted from his salary as OSL (Over Staying Leave) on 07.10.2014 and the paid month is seen as 10.01.2015.  That day is previous day of the date of journey and in Ext.A3 Rs.14,328/- is also imposed as fine dated 12.12.2014 and it paid month seen as 23.12.2014.  If we examine Ext.A4 we could not find that these deductions are caused due to the flight failure happened on 11.01.2015 even prior to that date, i.e. 07.10.2014 the amount is seen deducted as OSL.  On the basis of this finding with regard to Ext.A4 we can safely discard the contention raised by the complainant in this issue.  Even though the salary or allowance were deducted or a fine was imposed, no evidence to show that these things are happened as a result of the flight ticket cancellation.  We do admit that even though the complainant adduced oral evidence in this case the opposite party 1 and 2 only produced and marked Ext.B1.  Ext.B1 is the Circular related to general conditions of carriage for passengers and baggage.  In Ext.B1, Article 7 and Article 8 are explaining check in and refusal and limitation of carriage.  In article 8.2 limitation of carriage is explained, “Acceptance for carriage of unaccompanied children, incapacitated persons, pregnant women or person with illness may be subject to prior arrangement with Carrier, in accordance with Carrier’s Regulations”. 

           8. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party 1 and 2 argued that the complainant was suffering conjunctivitis and the airport authorities arrived a finding prima facie and direct the complainant for a medical check up for a better confirmation.  According to him, the complainant purposefully evaded from a medical check up the said attitude of the complainant itself is an admission of the stage of conjunctivitis.  When considering the nature and circumstances of this case the complainant has directly adduced evidence before this Forum and would have contested the case.  But in his absence his father as his power of attorney holder adduced evidence but all the said evidence before the Forum is hearsay one, so the credibility of this evidence is not so worthwhile.  At the time of cross-examination, he has not given proper answers but evaded from certain questions.  In the light of the above discussion, we find that the complainant in this case is not succeed to prove his case.  Even though, the complainant adduced documentary evidence that itself is seen contradictory.  Hence we find that this complaint is not been allowed.  Point Nos.2 and 3 found against the complainant.

          9. In the result, we pass the following orders:

          The complaint is dismissed.  No order of cost.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of May, 2016.

                                                                                 (Sd/-)

                                                                                    P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                                          (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)      :   (Sd/-) 

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II)          :   (Sd/-)   

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 :  Varghese. K.S

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Special Power of Attorney executed by the complainant. 

A2 :  Copy of E-Air Ticket No.0982109507757. 

A3 :  Cancelled PNR. 

A4 :  Bank statement

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

B1  :  General conditions of carriage for passengers and baggage

         of Air India Ltd. 

                                                                                                  (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Baiju Varghese, Karakkadu House, Kaipattoor.P.O.

                    Pathanamthitta Dist

2.  General Manager (Commercial), M/s. Air India Ltd.,

          Air Lines House, Meenampakom, Chennai – 27.

3. The Station Manager, Air India Ltd., Air India Building,

          Durbar Hall Road, Ernakulam – 682 016.

4. The Chief Agent, Air India, Pulimittathu Building,

          Ramanchira.P.O., Muthoor, Thiruvalla,

                    Pin – 689 107.

5. The Stock File.