Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/80

Mahendra Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ravi Kumar, Prop N S Travels - Opp.Party(s)

Amresh Kumar

25 Apr 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-16-07-2018

Date of final hearing-25-04-2023

 Date of Order-25-04-2023

Case No. 80/2018

Mahendra Prasad S/o- Late Sant Prasad

R/o- Plot No.40, Govt. Officer’s Colony, Biada Sector-12,

P.O. and P.S.- Sector-12, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand

Vs.

1. Ravi Kumar, Prop. N.S. Travels

R/o- Plot No. 126, Co-Operative Colony,

P.O. and P.S.- B.S.City, Bokaro Steel City, Jharkhand

2. The Manager/Incharge Air India

Jessore Road, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Airport,

Dumdum, Kolkata, West Bangal, 700052

 

 Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

1. None turned up on behalf of complainant on repeated call. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the O.P. No.2  is present and he argued the case.  It reveals from the record that this case is pending at the stage of argument in which complainant is absent since long, therefore, in the given facts as per provision of Section 38 (3) (c) Consumer Protection Act. 2019 case has been taken up for decision on merit on the basis of materials available on record.

 

2. Complainant’s  case in brief is that he booked Flight Ticket for Kolkata to Kathmandu for himself, family members and other relatives through O.P. No.1 and paid Rs. 1,24,400/- through cheque and cash Rs. 36/- only to O.P. No.1. Since those tickets were for Kolkata to Kathmandu, accordingly complainant booked room in the Hotel at Kathmandu. Further case is that on 15.05.2018 when complainant reached Kolkata Airport then his four relatives as named in the complaint petition were not allowed to travel for want of Voter I Card and Adhar Card was not considered as I Card. Matter was intimated to O.P. No.1 and request was made to Air port Authority but matter was not solved. O.P. 1 has returned Rs. 80,552/- and Rs. 6358/- as air fair and hotel charge respectively. In this way it is apparent that there is deficiency in service by the O.Ps. hence this case has been filed with prayer to direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for various type of harassment and to grant other reliefs.
3. As per W.S. of O.P. No. 1 he is a booking agent and as per direction of complainant he booked the ticket and room in the hotel and later on as per direction of the complainant he canceled it and refunded the amount to the complainant. Further reply is that it is wrong to say that he has stated to the complainant that he has send so many persons on the basis of Adhar Card in International tour however matter is in between complainant and Air port Authority and complaint of the complainant is totally wrong.
4. As per W.S. of O. P. No.2 case is not maintainable and it is not disclosing cause of action. Further ground is that complainant is having  no locus standi to file the present case who has not come before this Forum with clean hands and case is bad for mis-joinder of parties and  non-joinder of necessary party. Further reply is that matter is not in between complainant and answering O.P. rather it may be in between the complainant and Air port Authority officials but they have not been made party in this case hence case is liable to be dismissed.
5. Now point for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed ?
6. It is admitted fact that complainant was allowed to travel by the Airport Authority. Another admitted fact is that other persons namely Ranjit Kumar, Miss Tannu Shree, Mr. Mihir Kumar and Miss Anchal Prasad have not been allowed to travel to Kathmandu on basis of Adhar Card as ID Proof. Another admitted fact is that O.P. No.1 has booked the tickets and room in the hotel as per direction of the complainant and on his direction he has canceled it and also refunded the amount received after cancellation. As per annexure –A of O.P. No.2 Adhar Card is not an acceptable travel document for travel to Nepal/ Bhutan. This Annexure is the circular dt. 08.06.2017 issued by the competent authority.
7. From perusal of materials available on record including the statement of complainant, witness Ranjit Kumar and O.P. No.1 Ravi Kumar it is apparent that main grievance of the complainant is against the Airport authority of the concerned airport but said airport authority has not been made party in this case. It also apparent that complainant is not the victim or sufferer of the event rather victims are some other persons who have not given any authority or authorization or power of attorney to the complainant to file this case.
8. On the point of authorization to the complainant Ld. Counsel for the O.P. No.2 has placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of M Bhaskar Vrs. Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and ANR reported in (2013) 1 CPJ 366 (NC), in the case of Ram Niwas Soni Vrs. Vaish Model Sr. Sec. School and ORS reported in (2013) II CPJ 396 (NC), Amita Sharma Vrs. B.H.E.L. & Ors reported in (2013) II CPJ 505 (NC), Vijay Kumar Das Vrs. IRCTC reported in (2013) IV CPJ 506 (NC). It appears from the record that there is no individual grievance of the complainant rather he was allowed to travel. Other four persons who were not allowed by the Air port Authority to travel to Kathmandu Nepal have not come forward for redressal of their grievance and there is no any authority from those persons to the complainant to file this case on their behalf. Therefore, in light of above discussion and the principles laid down in above noted cases we are of the view that this case is not maintainable by the present complainant.
9. On the point of responsibility of non of the O.P. Ld. Counsel for the O.P. No.2 has placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of EMRITES Vrs. Deshraj Malhotra & ANR reported in (2015) IV CPJ 536 (NC) and in the case of Air India Vrs.  Sushil Kumar reported in 2015 (I) CPR 416 (NC). It is admitted fact that main grievance is against the Air Port Authority but said Air Port Authority has not been made party in this case nor there is any prayer against the Air Port Authority. Hence case is not maintainable in absence of necessary party. However, there is no any grievance against O.P. No.2. So far, O.P. No.1 is concerned his liability is limited to the price of the tickets and hotel booking price to which he has already returned to the complainant.
10. In light of above discussion and the principles laid down in above noted cases we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to get any relief from present O.Ps. who are not deficient in service. Ground for compensation and the basis on which compensation has been claimed has not been established. Accordingly this point is being decided against the complainant. Hence case is dismissed on merit and in the facts of this case parties shall bear their own costs.

 

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

 

                                                                                     

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                       Member