KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.231/10 JUDGMENT DATED 22.5.10 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT 1. The Chairman & Managing Director, AIR India, AirIndiaBuilding, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. 2. The General Manager Customer Support Services, Air India Express, Air India building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. 3. The Manager -- APPELLANTS Air India Ltd., 35/1301, Collis Estate, M.G.Road, Cochin – 682016. 4. The Duty Officer, Air India Express, Collis Estate, M.G.Road, Cochin – 682016 (By Adv Mathew K.Uthuppachan & Ors) Vs. 1. P.K.K.Pillai, S/0 K.P.Kesava Pillai, “Shahsin” Villa, IX/269, Vengoor Angamaly – 683 572. 2. Mrs.Kamalam K.Pillai, W/0 P.K.K.Pillai. “Shahsin” Villa, IX/269, Vengoor Angamaly – 683 572. 3. The Manager Osaka Air Travels Ltd. -- RESPONDENTS 1st Floor, BovansBuildings, Opp.Municipal Office, Angamaly – 683 572. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Air India in CC.269/07 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to refund Rs.1150/- to each of the complainants being the charge of the air ticket after deducting the bus fare and also to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to each of the 2 complainants and also to pay Rs,1000/- towards costs. It is the case of the complainants/ elderly couple that they purchased air tickets for the flight from Kochi to Trivandrum on 26.6.06 for attending an auspicious function held by the father - in – law of their son who is settled in the United States. The complainants boarded the flight, but were de-boarded stating that there was some technical snag to the aircraft. The air port authorities arranged an ordinary bus take them to Trivandrum and they reached Trivandrum at 8 PM. The journey was miserable and even drinking water was not arranged. They had applied for return of the full air fair of Rs.1300/- each. But the opposite parties did not respond. It is the case of the opposite parties/appellants that the technical problem to the aircraft was beyond the control of the opposite parties. It is at the option of the complainants that the travel by bus was arranged. Deficiency in service is denied. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, A1 to A12 and B1 to B5. The Forum has relied on the version of the PW1 that the alternate journey by bus assured by the opposite parties remained a nightmare. The contention that the ticket charge deducting bus fare was returned did not appeal to the Forum. It was also found that no convincing evidence was produced to establish that the flight was cancelled only due to technical snag and that the same was beyond the control of the opposite parties. The Forum below has noted that opposite parties could have arranged a luxury conveyance. On a perusal of the order of the Forum, we find that there is no patent illegality in the order in appreciation of evidence. Hence there is no scope for admitting the appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limine. Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT | 
