PER SHRI. S. G. CHABUKSWAR – HON’BLE  MEMBER

 1)        The Complainants by this complaint have prayed for recovery of amount from the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally Rs.10,191/- extra amount of air tickets with interest at the commercial rate, Rs.5,00,000/- compensation for mental harassment, Rs.1,500/- notice charges and cost of complaint.

 2)        The case of the Complainants is that, Opposite Party No.1 is a Travel Agency.  Opposite Party No.2 is a Registered Public Limited Company and running business of Airline.  The Opposite Party No.3 is the Vice President (Commercial) of Opposite Party No.2.  The allegations of Complainants is that on 11/02/2010 they had booked air tickets for Rs.20,658/- of Kingfisher Air Line through Opposite Party No.1 for flight from Chandigarh Airport to Mumbai Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminal 1.  Opposite Party No.1 issued to the Complainants E-tickets showing confirmed reservation status of the Kingfisher Airlines IT 600 Flight for 20/03/2010 in ‘E’ Economy Class, due departure was at 10.55 hrs.

 3)        The further case of Complainants is that on 20/03/2010 when they went to check in counter at Chandigarh Airport to collect their boarding passes for the flight, they came to know that their tickets have been cancelled because no VCR numbers were generated on the tickets therefore, they were not permitted to travel by the Kingfisher Flight.  After contact with Opposite Party No.1, he told for purchasing fresh tickets. Hence, they purchased tickets by paying extra amount of Rs.10,191/- of NACIL Indian Airline IC 863 flight in ‘X’ & ‘G’ Economy Class due departure was at 14.50 hrs. on 20/03/2010. The Complainants Nos.2 to 4 being stranded at Chandigarh Airport they had no choice but to pay the extra amount in order to get back to Mumbai.  The Complainants office account’s person managed to arrange the extra money in cash and went to deposit with Opposite Party No.1’s office.  They paid the said amount immediately and then only the Opposite Party No.1 issued fresh tickets of the NACIL Indian Air line flight – IC 863. They had suffered injury due to deprivation and wasted valuable time and money and caused inconvenience. They were unable to attend an organizational meeting in Mumbai on 20/03/2010.  They had demanded from Opposite Party No.1 to 3 extra amount of air line tickets and compensation by issuing notices on 01/04/2010. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 served served with the said notices but they neither paid the amount nor replied the notices.  Hence, this complaint.

 4)        Opposite Party No.2 has resisted the claim by filing written statement.  The contention of the Opposite Party No.2 is that there is no consumer and service provider relationship between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2. The Complainants neither paid consideration nor availed any service from Opposite Party No.2.   Hence, Complainants are not consumers.  So also there is no master and agent relationship between the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and there is no agency agreement between them. The Complainants No.2 to 4 are members of Complainant No.1 trade union. The payment of air tickets has also been made by the said union.  The Complainant No.2 to 4 have traveled for commercial purpose hence, the Complainants are not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

 5)        The further contention of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the booking agency of Opposite Party No.1 has been approved by the International Air Transport Association (IATA).  The IATA has control and supervision over the activities of approved agencies.  All IATA approved agencies can book tickets of all domestic or international airlines.  Opposite Party No.1 being an IATA approved agent generated PNR but he did not at all created any ticket number.  The ticket number could be generated only if the payment would have been made. The Opposite Party No.1 did not make payment therefore PNR generated by the Opposite Party No.1 was cancelled by the Computerized Reservation System (CRS). The Complainants have not made payment to Opposite Party No.2 directly or through Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 after collecting money from the Complainants did not complete the process required to be completed and also did not credit the money in the account of Opposite Party No.2 hence, PNR Number of the Complainants automatically cancelled for non deposit of money. Opposite Party No.1 mischievously made 35 unsuccessful attempts to revive the same PNR Number and MKJAQF without making payment and every time same was cancelled due to not making the payment.  Opposite Party No.2 has denied that there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part. Opposite Party No.2 has denied all other rival contents of the Complainants and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.        

6)        Opposite Party No.1 duly served with notice but remained absent hence, complaint proceeded ex-party against it.  Opposite Party No.3 is the Executive Vice President (Commercial) of Opposite Party No.2, he did not file separate written statement.  He filed application for deleting his name form the complaint but still his name is on record.

7)        We have considered the documents filed on record.  We heard arguments of Smt. Chitra Gosavi, Ld.Advocate for the Complainants. Mr. Sukhesh Shah, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 remained absent at the time of oral arguments. Following points arise for determination and our findings thereon are noted against each of them for the reasons given below -

                                    Points                                                           Findings         

           1.     Do the complainants prove that there is deficiency      Proved only against

                   in service and unfair trade practice on the part            Opposite Party No.1.  

                   of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 ?                                      

            2.    Whether the Complainants are entitled to recover       Yes, only from

                   extra amount of air tickets from Opposite Party          Opposite Party No.1.

                   Nos. 1 to 3 ?

            3.    Whether Complainants are entitled to the                   Yes, only cost from

                  compensation for mental torture & cost ?                    Opposite Party No.1.

           4.   What order ?                                                              As per final order.

 Reasons :-

 8) Point Nos.1 & 2:  The Complainants in support of their case produced evidence on affidavit of Complainant No.3 Parampaloath Joseph. As per the evidence of Complainant Joseph, on 11/02/2010 Complainant Nos. 2 to 4 booked air tickets of Kingfisher Airline through Opposite Party No.1 for the flight from Chandigarh Airport to Mumbai Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminal. The Complainant No.1 paid to Opposite Party No.1 Rs.20,658/- through cash payment for three tickets of the Complainant Nos.2 to 4.  Opposite Party No.1 issued receipt and cash memo in the name of Complainant No.1 and those are at Exh.A & B.  Opposite Party No.1 has also issued air tickets of Kingfisher Air line in the names of Complainant Nos. 2 to 4 those are at Exh.C, D & E. This evidence clearly goes to show that, Opposite Party No.1 collected amount Rs.20,658/- from the Complainants and issued air tickets to them.  The receipt No.1024, cash memo, air tickets Exh.A to E are on the letter head of Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 has accepted amount Rs.20,658/- from the Complainants for Airline Journey from Chandigarh Airport to Mumbai Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminal dtd.20/03/2010. From the evidence of Complainant No.3 Joseph and Air tickets Exh.C, D & E it appears on 20/03/2010 journey of Complainant No.2 to 4 was cancelled by the Airport Chandigarh as valid confirm reservation (VCR) numbers were not generated on the said tickets. The Complainant Nos.2 to 4 were not permitted to travel by the Kingfisher flight for the said reason.

9)        Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 have come with the case that, they never received any money from the Complainants directly or through Opposite Party No.1.  Opposite Party No.1 did not complete the process required to be complete and also did not credit the money in the account of Opposite Party No.2. Hence, PNRs of the Complainants were automatically cancelled for non deposit of money.  Opposite Party No.1 made 35 unsuccessful attempts to revive the PNR numbers and MKJDF without making payment and every time same was cancelled due to not making the payment.  Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 have produced copies of computerized 35 entries alongwith written statement at Annexure RWI and RWII.   The case of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 is that Opposite Party No.1 is approved agent of International Air Transport Association therefore, Opposite Party No.1 generated PNR but he did not created any ticket number.  The ticket number could be generated only if the payment would have been made.  Opposite Party NO.1 did not make payment therefore, PNR generated by the Opposite Party No.1 was cancelled by the Computerized Reservation System.  Opposite Party No.1 did not appear therefore, the evidence of Complainants and contentions of Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 remained unchallenged.  There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of Complainants and Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3.  The air tickets Exh.C, D & E issued by Opposite Party No.1 in the name of Complainant Nos.2 to 4 does not disclose receipt of said amount by Opposite Party No.2.  The Complainants have paid to Opposite Party No.1 Rs.20,658/- by the receipt and cash memo Exh.A & B for booking the air tickets of Kingfisher Airline.  Opposite Party No.1 did not appear and stated that the above amount has been received by Kingfisher Airline.  The air tickets of Complainant Nos.2 to 4 have been cancelled by Kingfisher Airline due to non-receipt of fair/amount of tickets to the Opposite Party No.2.

 10)      The  evidence shows  that  on  20/03/2010  after  cancellation  of  air  tickets  of Complainant Nos. 2 to 4 they contacted with the office of Opposite Party No.1, Mumbai. Opposite Party No.1 had asked the accountants of Complainants for purchasing new tickets of NACIL INDIAN AIRLINE and for immediate payment of an additional amount Rs.10,191/-.  On that day the accountants of Complainants paid additional amount Rs.10,191/- to the Opposite Party No.1 and got air ticket of NACIL INDIAN AIRLINE. Opposite Party No.1 has received from the Complainants additional amount Rs.10,191/- by the receipt and cash memo Exh.F & G.  The cash memo Exh.B shows that on 11/02/2010 Opposite Party No.1 had collected Rs.2,928/- from each Complainant Nos.2 to 4 for the air journey from Mumbai to Chandigarh and Rs.3,958/- for the journey of Chandigarh to Mumbai total Rs.2,928 + Rs.3,958 x 3 = Rs.20,658/-. The cash memo Exh.G clearly goes to show that on 20/03/2010 Opposite Party No.1 has charged Rs.7,355/- for each Complainant Nos.2 to 4 for the air tickets of journey from Chandigarh to Mumbai total Rs.7,355/- x 3 = Rs.22,065/-.  Opposite Party No.1 has deducted the amount of previous journey tickets Rs.3,958/- x 3 = Rs.11,874/- from total amount Rs.22,065/- and collected extra amount (Rs.22,065/-  -  Rs.11,874/- = Rs.10,191/-)  Rs.10,191/- from  the Complainants.  If air tickets of Complainant Nos.2 to 4 would not have been cancelled due to non-receipt of amount to the Kingfisher Airline the Complainants would not have to pay extra amount Rs.10,191/- for the air tickets of NACIL INDIAN AIRLINE. The Complainants have paid extra amount Rs.10,191/- due to the deficiency service of Opposite Party No.1.  The evidence available on record does not disclose any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 therefore, they are not liable to pay extra amount of air tickets to the Complainants.  Opposite Party No.1 is only responsible for payment of Rs.10,191/- to the Complainants  therefore, point nos.1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

 11) Point No. 3:  The Complainant No.1 is the trade union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926.  Complainant No.2 Naresh is the Secretary, Complainant No.3 Joseph is the Organizing Secretary and Complainant No.4 Gyandhar Mishra is the organizer of Complainant No.1 trade union.  The amount of air tickets of Kingfisher Airline and NACIL Indian Airline have been paid from the account of Complainant No.1 trade union.  The receipt of air tickets and cash memo Exh.A, B, F & G are in the name of the Complainant No.1.  The Complainant Nos.2 to 4 are the office bearers of Complainant No.1.  The mental injury can be caused to the individual person and not to the firm or union.  The Complainant No.1 is union therefore, question of mental torture or injury to the Complainant No.1 does not arise.  So also Complainant Nos. 2 to 4 are the office bearers of Complainant No.1 and they made journey with the amount of Complainant No.1 therefore, question  of  mental  torture  to  the  Complainant  Nos.2  to 4 does not arise. The Complainants are not entitled to the compensation towards mental torture.

 12)      In view of the finding to the point nos.1 & 2 Opposite Party No.1 is only responsible for payment of extra amount of air tickets.  Opposite Party No.1 has collected from the Complainants above extra amount Rs.10,191/- on 20/03/2010.  Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 is liable to pay interest on the said amount form the date 20/03/2010.  Considering the nature of complaint we are of the opinion that it is just to grant interest on the awarded amount @ 9% p.a. and cost of the complaint Rs.2,000/-.  Opposite Party No.1 is only responsible to pay the amount Rs.10,191 with interest @ 9% p.a. and cost Rs.2,000/-.  Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 are not responsible for the same.  Hence point no.3 answered accordingly.

 13)      The Complainants had purchased air tickets from Opposite Party No.1 hence, there is consumer and service provider relation between them.  Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 have not lead any evidence to show that Complainant Nos.2 to 4 had been to Chandigarh for commercial purpose therefore, we cannot accept the contention of Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 to say that Complainants had been to Chandigarh for commercial purpose. The Complainants can file the complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 14)      In the result complaint deserves to be partly allowed with cost only against Opposite Party No.1.  The complaint deserves to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.2 & 3.  In the result we proceeds to pass following order –

                                                                                                  O R D E R

                   i.             Complaint No.223/2010 is partly allowed with cost only against Opposite Party No.1 M/s. Sai Suvidha Travel & Tours.

            ii.            Opposite Party No.1 do pay to the Complainants Rs.10,191/- (Rs.Ten Thousand One Hundred Ninety One Only) with 

                           interest @ 9% p.a. from the date 20/03/2010 till the realization of amount.

                   iii.           Opposite Party No.1 do pay to the Complainants Rs.2,000/-(Rs.Two Thousand Only) towards cost of the complaint.

            iv.           Opposite Party No.1 do pay amount mentioned in the above para nos. ii  & iii  to the Complainants within two months from

                           the date of this order.

                   v.            The claim of the Complainants regarding mental torture is rejected.

                   vi.            The complaint against Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 is dismissed.

                   vii.           Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 shall bear their own cost.

                   viii.          Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.