Monday the  30^th   day of November  , 2011

in

between

 

                                                                                                                                   

          

                                                         O R D E R

           

The complainant case in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant on 16^th May 2005 through the 2^nd opposite party, the agent of the 1^st  opposite party purchased two air tickets for the purpose of travelling in Air India Flight to and fro from Kochin to Chicago. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.59400/-(Rupees Fifty nine thousand and  four hundred only )  for the tickets. The complainant went to Chicago on 28^th May 2005. On unforeseen reasons, the complainant was constrained to defer homecoming from as programmed. The complainant approached the Air India Office in Chicago to have been informed that for cancellation and refund of the ticket the complainant should approach the booking office in Kochin. The complainant's father on 25^th May 2006 entrusted the ticket with the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st  opposite party caused the complainant wait for some period for the refund of the ticket charge. Thereafter, the 1^st  opposite party required the complainant to approach the 2^nd opposite party for the refund of the charge of the ticket. It was later learned that the opposite party had closed down his business for ever. The complainant caused to send a legal notice to the 1^st opposite party calling upon him to effect payment of the ticket charge. The opposite parties till date did not make any useful response. The opposite parties committed deficiency of service. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.

2. On notice being served the 1^st  opposite party appeared and filed version. The 2^nd opposite party was not keen on appearing before this Forum, and was set ex-parte. The core contention of the 1^st  opposite party is that the complainant purchased the ticket from the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant, as such is not the 1^st opposite party's consumer. The 2^nd opposite party collects the cost of the tickets from the passengers and 1^st  opposite party issues tickets in the name of the respective passengers on credit basis. According to the 1^st  opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party booked tickets in the name of the complainant and the same was issued in the name of the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party without receiving the cost of the ticket from the 2^nd opposite party .  The 1^st  opposite party received the ticket from the part of the complainant for cancelling the same on condition that the charge of the ticket should be collected from the 2^nd opposite party. This opposite party has no connection with whatsoever transaction took place between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party. This opposite party is not liable to payout the cost of the complainant's cancelled tickets. The complainant is only to be dismissed with cost, the  1^st  opposite party forcefully contend.

3. The complainant's evidence consists of the testimony of the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant and the documents Exbts Al to A5 were marked. On the side of the  1^st  opposite party, the accounts manager was examined, and Exbts B 1 to B4 were marked.

           4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up

before us for consideration are:-

(a) Whether the 1^st  opposite party is liable to refund the ticket charge to the      `    complainant?

         (b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

5. We carefully went through the complaint, version, affidavits and other materials placed on record by the parties. It appears that the purchase of the tickets by the complainant or the giving back of one of the same for cancellation is not disputed by the  1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party's contention is that the ticket was purchased by the 2^nd opposite party in the name of the complainant. The 1^st  opposite party received one of the tickets for cancellation on condition that the amount was to be received from the 2^nd opposite party. Holding this contention lively in mind, we meticulously perused the materials brought on record  before us by the parties. According to the 1^st  opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party collected money from the complainant for the material tickets and the 1^st  opposite party issued ticket to the 2^nd opposite party in the name of the complainant to have been handed them over to the complainant. The 1^st  opposite party contends that the 2^nd opposite party is not their  agent. The complainant  has not received tickets directly from the 1^st opposite party. Concededly, the 2^nd opposite party collected the cost of the tickets from the complainant for the purpose  of  purchasing tickets for the complainant. The second opposite party paid the said amount to the 1^st  opposite party and the 1^st  opposite party issued tickets in the name of the complainant. Even if it  is assumed that the  1^st  opposite party has not issued the material tickets directly to the complainant, it is indisputable that the  1^st  opposite party is the seller of the said tickets. The complainant is the purchaser of the same. It is crucial to notice that the 2^nd opposite party played the role of the agent in the transaction. In this context, the contention of the  1^st  opposite party is  that the  1^st  opposite party has no connection with whatsoever transaction between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party will not hold water. The  1^st  opposite party's contention that the tickets were issued with the 2^nd opposite party on credit basis, and the 1^st  opposite party till date has not received the cost of the material tickets from the 2^nd opposite party is also inconsequential as far as the instant case is concerned. The credit basis or any other arrangement is the understanding between the 1^st  and the 2^nd opposite parties. The same will not in any way take away the liability of the opposite parties towards the complainant. We are of the strong view that the service of the opposite parties is deficient. Admittedly, the 1^st opposite party received the unused ticket from the part of the complainant and caused him run from pillar  to post to get the refund of the ticket charge. We need hardly say, the complainant is  entitled to relief .

6. For the forging facts and findings emerged herein above, the 1^st opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.29700/-(Rupees Twenty nine thousand and seven hundred only ) the cost of the ticket with 9% interest from the date of filing this complaint till its recovery. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only ) to the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.

                                                                                                  Sd/-Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compared by:-