BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL
Present: Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,
Member
And
Smt. V.J. Praveena,
Member.
Tuesday, the 20th day of May, 2008.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 04/2007
Between:
Veerareddy Ramana Reddy, S/o Jagannadha Reddy,
Age: 38 years, Occ: Business,
R/o 1-7-951, Advocates Colony,
Hanamkonda, Warangal District.
… Complainant
AND
1. Regional Manager, Bharathi-Tele Ventures Ltd.,
Splendid Towers, D.No.1-8-364/437/438/445
Opp. Begumpet Police Station,
S.P.Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad.
2. EMTEE Celular (Exclusive Showroom),
Rep. by its Managing Partner Kirnakar Tota,
D.No.1-8-528, Sai Arcade,
Balasamudram, Hanamkonda,
Warangal District.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. K. Rajeshwar, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri B.Rama Krishna, Advocate.
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 : Sri A. Veerabadraiah, Advocate.
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
ORDER
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President
This is a complaint filed by the complainant V. Ramana Reddy against the Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,103/- and Rs.442/- with interest 24% p.a., to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the expenses incurred and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and Compensation and Rs.2,000/ towards costs.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The complainant is one of the subscriber and customer of Opposite party No.1 and is having Air Tel Mobile No.9866226234. Opposite party No.1 is a company providing mobile telephone facility and Opposite party No.2 is the authorized agent of Opposite party No.1 at Warangal and have collected amounts from the complainant. Opposite party No.1 offered to the customers “Free Flight Offer” through pamphlets by offering Airtel free flight offer giving a chance to get a To and Fro Air Ticket to a selected three destinations in India. Opposite party NO.1 furnished the details in pamphlets to avail offer. The complainant being the customer of Opposite party No.1 and attracted by the offer and in fact on invitation they had work at Kolkatta in the month of January, 2006 to attend the dog show of Calcutta Kennel Club Centenary year celebrations twin dog shows to be held at Kolkatta. The complainant having invitation from Kolkatta and since being the dog lover and he is being the Secretary of Kennel Club Association, Warangal Branch and having invitation from the Kolkatta under the capacity of Secretary that the said dog show being held on 21, 22 and 23rd January, 2006 at Kolkatta and the said place is covered in the free flight offer of the Opposite party No.1 and infact the complainant want to attend the function at Kolkatta and the same place covered through an offer of the Oppoiste party No.1 and the complainant has chosen the free flight offer of Opposite party No.1 and the complainant gone through Opposite parties pamphlets averments and followed the instructions in offer pamphlet Airtel Customer Relation Centre and complainant approached Opposite party No.2 by Dial 2005 from Mobile for the free flight offer to Kolkatta on 21-1-06 and the complainant approached Opposite party No.1 has sent the booking request form through Opposite party No.2 i.e, Air Tel Customer Relation Center and Opposite party No.2 collected an amount of Rs.1,103/- from the complainant on 14-11-05 at Hanamkonda Show room and passed a receipt vide No.38585. After paying the amount the complainant received the booking request from by post and were duly filled and submitted in Opposite party No.2 on 18-11-05 along with letter stating about the necessity of complainant’s travel to attend the Kolkatta show and further the Opposite party No.2 instructed the complainant to pay another sum of Rs.442/- by way of Demand Draft payable at Delhi in favour of T.L.C. Marketing towards Airport and other Taxes, passenger service charges levied by Airline or Traffic Organization and the same were paid vide D.D.No.512266, dated 25-11-05 and submitted to the Opposite party No.2 and such all formalities were completed and on 25-11-05 Opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that the ticket booking will be confirmed within 21 days. Subsequently even on the schedule date i.e., 21-1-06 the complainant approached opposite parties personally and enquired about the confirmation and intimated if the confirmation is not made out make them to provide alternative arrangement by train, but Opposite party No.2 assured tickets will be supplied within 48 hours well in advance and not to worry for the programme and on assurances of Opposite party No.2 the complainant taken the consideration and waited without choosing the alternative arrangements. Opposite parties failed to confirm the travel as promised by them. Since, the complainant has got booked rooms for accommodation, conference hall for meeting and incurred expenses of Rs.10,000/- above for sending the letters. Thereafter the complainant issued notices to Opposite parties. Then he filed this case before this Forum.
Opposite Party filed the Written Version stating that without making party of TLC Marketing PIC which is the offer supplying and administering company as party. This petition is not at all maintainable and further the complainant already received the amount of Rs.1,100/- in his bill since already the amount was adjusted in the bill, he is not entitled for any air ticket and requested this forum to dismiss this complaint. This petition is not at all maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant in support of his claim, filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of opposite party No.1 Sri K.B.S.Sharma and on behalf of opposite party No.2 Sri Kirnakar Tota filed their Affidavits in the form of chief examination but not marked the documents.
Now the point for consideration whether the complaint is recovery of the above amount as prayed for?
After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:
In this case is complainant is not at all entitled to get any amount from Opposite parties. Because first point is that he paid an amount of Rs.1,103/-.After Opposite parties failed to supply air tickets on 21-1-06 then he requested Opposite parties to adjust the same amount in his bill. So thereupon, the Opposite parties, they adjusted the same amount in his bill on 6-3-06 i.e., Ex.B-2. As per Ex.B-2 the amount of Rs.1,100/- adjusted in his bill and further as per the conditions that the complainant should fill up the booking request form by giving three choice departure and destination airports and three choice dates. Such duly filled form should be submitted to the agent of the Opposite party under due acknowledgement along with requisite D.D. for Rs.442/- towards Airport taxes. The copy of terms and conditions certified to be true copy is filed herewith as Ex.B-1. However, the complainant has not submitted the form for the reasons best known to him. The complainant had not filed any acknowledgement showing that he had submitted the booking request form to the Opposite party. Further the complainant has not mentioned in his complaint about the three choice destinations nor the choice dates, which itself is sufficient that the complainant had not followed the instructions and had not submitted the booking request form. So the allegations that the complainant wanted to go to Koklata to attend the Calcutta Kennel Club are far from truth and in any event the same cannot be believable. And it would be related to Opposite parties in any manner whatsoever. And Further as per the conditions of Opposite party No.1 the complainant has to add TLC Marketing PIC. It is offer supplying and administering company as a party in this case. Non adding of the party is bad for law and is liable to dismissed.
Admittedly in this case, TLC Marketing PIC is given an offer supplying the administering company so certainly the complainant has to add TLC marketing as a party. But he is not added as a party. It is one of the loc -onus to him. The main point in this case is that since already an amount of Rs.1,100/- adjusted in the bill dated 6-3-06 there is no point for the complainant to ask again the damages and return of the same amount.
For the foregoing reasons given by us, we are of the opinion that we see no grounds to allow this complaint. Accordingly we dismiss this complaint. Hence, we answered this point accordingly in favour of opposite parties against complainant.
In the result there are no merits in the complaint filed by the complainant and accordingly the same is dismissed, but without cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 20th May, 2008).
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Party
Affidavit of complainant filed Affidavit of O.P.1 filed.
Affidavit of O.P.2 filed.
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of complainant
- Ex.A-1 xerox copy of Terms and conditions of Airtel Free Flight Offer.
- Ex.A-2 xerox copy of bill payment receipt for Rs.1,103/-.
- Ex.A-3 xerox copy of D.D.
- Ex.A-4 xerox copy of brochure of Opposite party No.1.
- Ex.A-5 Xerox copy of brochure of Calcutta Kennel Club.
On behalf of Opposite party.
NIL
Sd/-
President.
