Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/226/2014

MAHARAJA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT - Complainant(s)

Versus

R. VIJAYAN - Opp.Party(s)

LAVANYA SHANKAR

28 Apr 2023

ORDER

 IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R VENKATESAPERUMAL     … MEMBER

 

F.A. No.226 of 2014

(Against the Order, dated 02.05.2014, passed in C.C. No.57/2008, on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai-North)

 

                                   Orders pronounced on: 28.04.2023

The Proprietor,

M/s.Maharaja Tourism Development  Private Limited,

8, Sivaram Sastri St., Ist Floor,

Park Town,  Chennai 600 003.   ... Appellant / 1^st Opposite party.

vs.

1.R.Vijayan,

S/o.Rathinasamy,

Jupiter March Works,

Thiruvannamalai Road,

Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

(Since dead, R2 to R4 are

his Legal Heirs, as per

the order dated 08.10.2021).

 

2. Ramila

3. Minor V.Lakshmipriya

4. Minor V.Varsha (R2/Wife &

RR-3 & 4/daughters - of late R1)

Thiruvannamalai Road,

Srivilliputhur,

Virudhunagar District.

 

5. S.Natarjan,

S/o.Sankaralingam,

Kulalar Street, Srivilliputhur,

Virudhunagar District.

 

6.N.Umadevi,

W/o.Natarajan,

Kulalar Street, Srivilliputhur,

Virudhunagar District.

 

7. Minor N.Sankaralingam,

S/o.Natarajan.

 

8. Minor N.Sivaraman,

S/o.Natarajan.

Minor R7 & R8 are

Represented by their Father & Natural Guardian R5.

 

9. Minor R.Prasannavel,

Represented by his Father & Natural Guardian

Mr. K.Raghavan,

19, Pilayar Koil Street,

Perumalpatty, Srivilliputhur,

Virudhunagar District.         … Respondents 1 to 9 / Complainants.                           

 

10. The Proprietor,

Inter Globe Aviation Ltd.,

144, 145, Malavika Centre,

Kodambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai 600 034.            ... 10^th Respondent / 2^nd Opposite party.

 

               For Appellant                :  M/s. Lavanya Shankar

               For RR-1 to 9                :  M/s. J.Dharamarajan

             For R10                    :  Dispense with

 

This Appeal came up for hearing on 04.11.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsels appearing for the parties and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

             Respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein filed C.C. No.57 of 2008 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai-North, as against the appellant herein/1^st Opposite Party therein and R-10 herein/2^nd Opposite Party therein, on the ground that they had planned a trip to Delhi as a Group Tour consisting of 16 persons; that on 03.03.2007, they had booked air-tickets through the appellant for their scheduled return journey from Delhi to Chennai on 11.05.2007 by paying a consideration of Rs.23,616/-; that the appellant/1^st OP had conveyed that reservation of the tickets for the said journey in a Flight operated by the 2^nd OP was confirmed, however, it was not together as a single group for all the 16 persons but in two groups consisting of 7 passengers in one group and 9 in the other group; that, after visiting Delhi, when they reported at the Delhi Airport, the Authorities had permitted only one group consisting of 7 passengers and declined permission to the other group stating that their ticket was already cancelled; that the efforts of the complainant to contact the appellant/1^st OP ended in vain; that, due to the negligence & service deficiency on the part of the 1^st OP, the complainants, who had already spent their entire money during the tour, had to somehow shell out a sum of Rs.51,666/- for their return journey through some other flight and, in that process, they were put to great sufferings and difficulties; and that the legal notice issued to the 1^st OP was not properly responded. 

             The 1^st OP/appellant resisted the complaint by inter alia stating that there are contradictions in respect of the date of purchase of the air-tickets as mentioned in the Notice and the Complaint, the manner of booking and the mode of payment; that it is false to say that the complainants had tried to contact the 1^st OP on 11.05.2007; that the legal notice issued was much belated; that the complainants did not furnish the required documents to prove that the tickets were purchased through the 1^st OP; and that there is no cause of the action to file the complaint against them and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

             In the written version filed by the 2^nd OP/R-10 herein, it is mainly stated that no actual claim is made against them, as such; they are not a necessary party to the proceedings.

             Before the District forum, the parties filed their respective proof affidavits and, while on the side of the complainant, 11 documents were filed as Exs.A1 to A11, the OPs filed 5 documents as Exs.B1 to B5.  By the impugned order, dated 02.05.2014, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint against the 2^nd OP/R10 herein and, by concluding that the complainants had established unfair trade practice, negligence and service deficiency against the 1^st OP, it has allowed the complaint by directing the 1^st OP to refund to the complainants a sum of Rs.75,282/-, the total sum as per Exs.A1 and A2, with 9% interest from 11.05.2007/the date of  Ex.A2/copy of Return Tickets.  The appellant was further directed to pay Rs.45,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complainant, within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, the sum shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of  payment.  Aggrieved by the said order, the 1^st OP has come up with the present appeal.

 

             2. It is the main submission of the appellant’s counsel that, by placing much reliance upon Ex.B4/copy of the Reservation Record, the District Forum has reached a wrong conclusion that the cancellation of the confirmed tickets of the complainant was done only at the instance of one Uttam Jain, who is said to be the Life-time Director of the 1^st OP.  According to them, the Forum below failed to appreciate that, by no stretch of imagination, the appellant could be held liable for any delinquency committed by any of its Directors in his individual capacity.  Further, only a sum of Rs.716/- was credited by the 2^nd OP in favour of the 1^st OP’s Director and in such circumstances, the  District Forum ought to have restrained itself in passing the impugned direction which is highly onerous in nature.  In this case, the complainants have not even proved in a manner known to law that they have paid the consideration to the 1^st OP for booking the tickets so as to indicate the existence of consumer vis-à-vis service provider relationship, but, they miserably failed in that regard since their own pleadings show that the ticket was booked through one R.Ravichandran working in the Coast Guard, Chennai.  Further, as per Ex.B4, the confirmed ticket reserved on 03.03.2007 was cancelled through the 9^th Complainant/R.Prasannavel.  On the face of it, the findings of the District Forum are rendered erroneous and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.       

 

             3. Per contra, it is the main submission of the contesting respondents/complainants that Ex.B4/Reservation Record connected to cancellation of the tickets in question shows an entry therein for Rs.22,900/- which seems to be a credit against some other passengers’ ticket amount; that the Director of the 1^st OP/Uttam Jain, in order to sell the tickets to other passengers, had given a credit of Rs.716/- through his Card to make it Rs.23,616/- which is the ticket amount paid by the complainants as per Ex.A1, thereby, the OP had cancelled the tickets and utilized it for some other passengers that too without refunding the ticket charges.  As such, the unfair trade practice is apparent and clearly borne out by the records of the appellant themselves and hence, their contrary submissions revolving around booking would in no way advance their defence against the liability.

 

             4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record. 

             It is seen that the ticket in question was booked for undertaking journey in the Carrier operated by the 2^nd OP.  Therefore, the details emanating from the said OP in respect of the transactions in question would be more useful for understanding the issues in a right way. In this regard, it is pointed out that, in a petition/CMP No.283 of 2010 filed before the District Forum by the complainants seeking to ascertain the actuality behind cancellation of their tickets, the 2^nd OP had filed a counter affidavit, wherein, they had stated that the Tickets in favour of the complainants were booked online through the 2^nd OP’s Website on 03.03.2007 with the user ID ‘nishanthbabu’.  By referring to Ex.B3/copy of booking user information, the complainants would state that the said ID belongs to the appellant/1^st OP.  At para No.7 of the said counter-affidavit, it is further stated thus:-

       “ The filed documents also reveal that the name of the user ID was modified to ‘PRASANNAVEL/R’ between 03.03.2007 and 07.03.2007 and that the tickets were cancelled on 07.03.2007 itself by the same user id through the internet account.”

While so, the claim of the appellant that the cancellation was done by R.Prasannavel/9^th respondent herein/9^th complainant cannot be true for the reason that Ex.A.10 shows that Prasannavel was then a minor, whose date of birth is 18.11.2001 and that, obviously, something was done clandestinely in between 03.03.2007 and 07.03.2007 by changing the transacted user id – nishantbabu as PRASANNAVEL/R to create an impression that one of the complainants had done the cancellation.  The counter-affidavit further states that, after the cancellation, the balance was refunded to the user’s account ‘as the customer did not book the tickets themselves’.  Similarly,  Ex.B4 containing the cancellation details reflects the name of Uttam Jain and also the details of his visa card.  The said Uttam Jain is not a staff or employee of the 1^st OP, rather, admittedly, he is a Director of the said OP. In such circumstances, when Ex.B4 bears the name of one of the Directors of the 1^st OP-Uttam Jain with details of his visa card for a sum of Rs.716/- and shows the ticket-status ‘cancelled’, as rightly adverted to by the District Forum, a duty is cast upon the appellant herein to explain the reasons behind appearance of the name of Uttam Jain in Ex.B4 connected to cancellation of the tickets in question.  The failure on the part of the appellants in coming up with any good explanation would only probablise the complainants’ theory and arguments made in respect of Ex.B4.  The complainants, who were deprived of a peaceful return journey due to uninformed cancellation of their ticket that too without refund, had issued a legal notice to the 1^st OP, whereupon, by taking note of the fact that the name of their Director had appeared in Ex.B4 connected to cancellation, they ought to have acted diligently, but having miserably failed in that, their present endeavour in making contentions as could be seen from the ‘written notes of argument’ that if at all for the delinquency committed by one of its Directors/Uttam Jain in  his individual capacity, the 1^st OP cannot be held liable and that the sum involved pertaining to the card of Uttam Jain being Rs.716/-, the District Forum ought not to have passed the onerous order, is highly deplorable.  As their own documents unfold some murky involvement of their Director behind cancellation of the ticket that is said to have been done on 07.03.2007, the appellant cannot be allowed to succeed.  On a scrutiny of the order passed by the lower forum, we find that the said Forum has elaborately discussed the points and arrived at a just conclusion to fasten the liability upon the 1^st OP/appellants and we find no good reason for interference.

             5. In the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed as devoid of any merit.

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                  PRESIDENT.

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/FEBRUARY/2023.