BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                                        :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 388/2011 Filed on 08.12.2011

Dated: 17.12.2013

Complainant:

Jeeva Joy, D/o Joy Cherian, T.C 13/368(1), Mundakkal, Vanchiyoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. 

                             (By adv. Anithas Jacob)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Kingfisher Airlines Limited, The Qube, C.T.S. No. 1498 A/2, 4^th Floor, M.V. Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059.

1. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., G.S.A Spencers Travel Services Ltd., Stargate Building, T.C 9/888 (2), Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram-10.

                    (By adv. M. Nizamudeen)

This C.C having been heard on 09.12.2013, the Forum on 17.12.2013 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD:  PRESIDENT

          The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that complainant is a student doing her MBA in Mumbai, that on 10.08.2011 complainant booked an air ticket with opposite parties’ flight for the journey from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram, that opposite parties had issued confirmed air tickets for the date 23.10.2011 at 12.15 hours in flight No. IT 3137 Aircraft 320, that on 23.10.2011 when complainant went to Mumbai Chatrapati Sivaji International airport for her journey she was informed by the opposite parties that the seats are not available in the booked aircraft, that opposite parties arranged the journey in flight No. IT 3151 to Kochi and from there to Thiruvananthapuram by taxi, that complainant arranged her trip to Thiruvananthapuram on 23.10.2011 for attending a wedding anniversary function of her family friend Mrs. Anu Priyadarsini which was scheduled at 2 p.m on 23.10.2011.  Complainant could reach Thiruvananthapuram only at 21.50 hrs and could not attend the party, that complainant being an unmarried girl and also alone in the trip from Kochi to Thiruvananthapuram by taxi was under high stress during her journey and her parents and family members also faced much mental agony owing to irresponsible act of the opposite parties.  The act of the opposite parties to deny the confirmed air tickets would amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The 1^st opposite party is the head office of M/s Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. and the 2^nd opposite party is its local office at Thiruvananthapuram.  Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant. 

          Opposite parties, on being served, entered appearance and filed their version contending interalia that complainant’s booking with opposite party is matters on record, that complainant has not specifically mentioned the time of her reporting at the check-in-counters, that by the time complainant reported for check-in for flight IT 3137, all seats on the aforesaid flight had already been released and complainant could not be accommodated on the same.  Complainant was therefore offered alternatives for travel to Thiruvananthapuram via Bangalore or for travel to Kochi with surface transport (to be provided by the opposite party) to her residence or to avail full refund on her booking with the opposite party, that complainant herself opted to travel by flight IT 3151 of the opposite party from Mumbai to Kochi and from there a pre-paid taxi to her residence was organized by the opposite party, that there is no cause of action against opposite parties and in favour of the complainant, that complainant’s demand for Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation is unwarranted, unreasonable and strongly denied, that before the complainant could be provided with Rs. 3,000/- as compensation as per the regulations laid down by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, complainant had already left for her flight to Kochi, that opposite party had submitted a cheque No. 468504 dated 15.02.2012 for Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation in favour of the complainant with submission that the same can be released to the complainant with appropriate directions, that there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party and hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

          The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P4.  In rebuttal opposite party has not filed proof affidavit. 

Points (i) & (ii):- Admittedly on 10.08.2011complainant had booked an air ticket with opposite parties’ flight for the journey from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram.  It has been the case of the complainant that opposite parties had issued confirmed air ticket for the date 23.10.2011 at 12.15 hrs in the flight No. IT 3137 Aircraft 320.  The very case of the complainant is that when she came at Mumbai Chatrapati Sivaji International airport for her journey on the said date, she was informed by the opposite parties that the seats are not available in the booked aircraft.  Opposite party had arranged an alternative flight from Mumbai to Kochi and from there to Thiruvananthapuram by taxi.  These are the admitted facts.  According to complainant due to the action of the opposite parties by denying confirmed air tickets, opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  It has been contended by the complainant that the very purpose of the journey from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram on 23.10.2011 was for attending a wedding anniversary function of her family friend Mrs. Anu Priyadarsini which was scheduled at 2 p.m on 23.10.2011, but she could not reach Thiruvananthapuram at the scheduled time due to the action of the opposite parties.  Further it has been contended by the complainant that she is unmarried girl and she was alone in the trip from Kochi to Thiruvananthapuram by taxi and she was under high stress during her journey and her parents and family members also faced mental agony owing to the irresponsible act of the opposite parties.  Complainant has been cross examined by opposite party.  During cross examination she has admitted that she had purchased the ticket from the opposite parties on online.  Ext. P1 is the copy of the confirmation-KFA Web booking.  A perusal of Ext. P1 shows booking status as confirmed from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram.  Ext. P2 is the copy of the boarding pass issued by the opposite party.  Ext. P3 is the original cheque dated 15.02.2012 for Rs. 3,000/- issued by the opposite party in the name Jeeva Joy.  Ext. P4 is the cheque returning memo issued by Axis Bank.  As per Ext. P4 the cheque was returned due to 55-account being blocked.  It is pertinent to point out that opposite party has specified in supplementary version that they have submitted cheque No. 468504 dated 15.02.2012 for Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation in favour of the complainant.  Admittedly the said cheque furnished by opposite party before the Forum was issued to complainant on her application, that complainant presented the said cheque for encashment and the same was not honoured stating the reason that 55-account blocked.  Ext. P3 & P4 are the said cheque and cheque returning memo.  It is to be noted that opposite party had issued the said cheque towards compensation as per their regulation.  The reason for denial of the journey on the scheduled flight is that all seats on the aforesaid flight have already been released.  As per Ext. P1, ticket is confirmed.  After issuing confirmed ticket, opposite parties had denied journey on the ground that “all seats of the flight had already been released”.  The act of the opposite parties in denying the confirmed ticket without sufficient reason would amount to deficiency in service.  Further we cannot afford to overlook the agony suffered by the complainant for her journey from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram.  Admittedly opposite party arranged alternative flight from Mumbai to Kochi and from Kochi to Thiruvananthapuram by taxi.  According to complainant she was alone in the trip from Kochi to Thiruvananthapuram by taxi and she was under high stress during her journey and her parents also faced much mental agony owing to the activities of the opposite parties.  Further the cheque issued by opposite party also bounced on the ground ‘account blocked’.  All these would establish the case of the complainant.  Though opposite party issued Rs. 3,000/- by way of cheque as compensation and the same was bounced, the pain and sufferings of the complainant could not be valued in Rs. 3,000/-.  The action of the opposite parties in not allowing her journey in the scheduled flight after issuing confirmed ticket will also amount to unfair trade practice.  Taking into consideration of the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party and other terrible inconvenience suffered by the complainant as well as mental agony, we deem that justice will be well met if complainant is granted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. 

In the result, complaint is allowed.  Opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay the complainant Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation along with Rs. 1,000/- as costs within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which Rs. 10,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 8% from the date of this order.     

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 17^th day of December 2013.

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD                   : PRESIDENT

          Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

          Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 388/2011

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Jeeva Maria Joy

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

          P1     - Copy of the confirmation-KFA Web booking

P2     - Copy of boarding pass issued by opposite party.

P3     - Original cheque dated 15.02.2012 for Rs. 3,000/- issued by opposite   

             party in the name of complainant.

          P4     - Cheque returning memo issued by Axis Bank.

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb