BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P.No. 132/2003 Filed on 20..03..2003

Dated: 30..04..2010

Complainant:

P.S. Abdul Vahab, Puthenveedu, Mylakkadu, Kollam – 691571. Represented by A.M. Salim, S/o Abdul Karim, Aji Buildings, Perumkula – P.O., Kavalayoor, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. P. Rahim)

Opposite parties:

1. Residential Manager, Air India, Thiruvananthapuram.

   (By Adv. S. Reghukumar)

2. Managing Director, Welmen Travellings, Panavila, Thiruvananthapuram – 33781.

   (By B.S. Prasad Gandhi)

3. Gulf Travel Bureau, T.C.2/1420, 4 Vrindan Building, Pattom Palace – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. Opp. Vydhyuthi Bhavan.

   (By K.K. Rajeev)

This O.P having been heard on 30..11..2009, the Forum on 30..04..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant purchased a confirmed sticker-pasted ticket of Air India through opposite parties 1 & 2 on 31/12/2001 to travel from Trivandrum to Riyadh on 18/1/2002 in connection with his employment abroad, that when he reached the Airport on 18/1/2002 at 4.45 A.M he was informed by opposite parties that the said flight was late and subsequently cancelled it, that as an alternate arrangement when he entrusted the ticket at the counter, he was informed by the 1^st opposite party that the said ticket was not confirmed and the same was cancelled as early on 1/1/2002 due to deficiency of service of opposite parties 2 & 3. It is submitted by the complainant that opposite parties 2 & 3 collected Rs. 19,700/- from him towards ticket fair and service charge, that due to cancellation of the flight and non-confirmation of the ticket he suffered loss of Rs. 1 lakh. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,29,500/- along with cost to the complainant.

2. 1^st opposite party filed version contending that complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, that the complainant arises from a Visa transaction done by the 3^rd opposite party, that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party, that the booking of Airline tickets is done as per the International Rules and Regulations recognised by the various Airlines and booking agents affiliated to and approved by the IATA, that the booking agency has to submit the details of the bookings so made by them to the Airlines concerned, then only the bookings made by an agent of IATA can confirm the ticket subject to the availability of seats in the concerned flight, that if the IATA agent causes delay or fails to submit the details of the passenger to the Airlines concerned, then the ticket will be cancelled due to non-submission of details within the stipulated time. The relation between the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is on a principal to principal basis and not as a principal to agent basis. 1^st opposite party did not issue the sticker pasted ticket to the complainant, nor 1^st opposite party issued any confirmed ticket to the complainant. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are not the agents of the 1^st opposite party, that the 1^st opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the 1^st opposite party. Hence 1^st opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. 2^nd opposite party filed version contending that complainant did not contact the 2^nd opposite party nor requested for any service from them, that as per the Airlines rules, if a passenger books an Airline ticket months back and obtain an OK status it is his duty to confirm the ticket date and time before journey. If there is any mistake on complainant's side he cannot find fault with the opposite parties, that 2^nd opposite party has no relationship with the complainant, that complainant never approached the 2^nd opposite party nor requested for service. 2^nd opposite party is not responsible for the cancellation of flight. Hence 2^nd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. 3^rd opposite party filed version contending that 3^rd opposite party is not a necessary party in this case and complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties, that 3^rd opposite party is not aware of the relationship between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, that 3^rd opposite party is engaged in the service of the Visa processing and documentation only, that complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party and applied for Visa processing and submitted his passport with the 3^rd opposite party and accordingly 3^rd opposite party sent the passport of the complainant at their head Office at Bombay, and thereafter 3^rd opposite party handed only the passport to the complainant with affixed Visa thereon, 3^rd opposite party never arranged flight ticket as alleged, that 3^rd opposite party is not having any IATA permit for flight ticket processing, that 3^rd opposite party is not aware of the cancellation of the so called air ticket, that there is no cause of action for the complainant to file the complaint against the 3^rd opposite party. Hence 3^rd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant has purchased a confirmed Air ticket from opposite parties?

    

2. Whether opposite parties have cancelled the said Air ticket?

    

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

    

4. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of air fare with compensation?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P7. Complainant has been cross examined by 1^st opposite party. In rebuttal, 1^st opposite party has filed affidavit and 1^st opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant. Opposite parties did not produce any documents.

6. Points (i) to (iv): It has been the case of the complainant that complainant purchased a confirmed sticker-pasted ticket of Air India through opposite parties 1 & 2 on 31/12/2001 to travel from Trivandrum to Riyadh on 18/1/2002 in connection with his employment abroad, that when he reached the Airport on 18/1/2002 at 4.45 A.M, he was informed that the said flight was late and subsequently cancelled it, that as an alternate arrangement when he entrusted the ticket at the counter, he was informed by the 1^st opposite party that the said ticket was not confirmed and the same was cancelled as early on 1/1/2002 due to deficiency in the service of opposite parties 2 & 3. It has also been the case of the complainant that opposite parties 2 & 3 had collected Rs. 19,700/- from him towards ticket fair and service charge that due to cancellation of flight and non-confirmation of ticket he suffered loss of Rs. 1 lakh. Ext. P2 is the original Air Ticket. As per Ext. P2, date of issue: 21 November 2001, Name of passenger: Abdul Vahab, Passage is from Trivandrum to Mumbai to Riyadh, Place of Issue Agency: Welmen Travelling, Trivandrum, Ticket No. 3478221054. Other details are seen written in Ext. P2 but not legible to read. While Ext. P1 is the copy of the flight coupon, wherein PNR details are clearly mentioned as Carrier: A1, Flights: 829, Class: L, Date: 18 January, Time : 08, Status: OK. Ext. P3 is the copy of the computer print out stating 'This PNR was entirely cancelled'. Ext. P4 is the copy of the document showing the address of the 3^rd opposite party and details of Visa transaction to Abdul Vahab. Ext. P5 is the copy of the flight coupon. Ext. P6 is the copy of the passport of the complainant. 1^st opposite party is the Residential Manager of Air India. It has been contented by 1^st opposite party that the booking of Airline tickets is done as per the International Rules and Regulations recognized by the various Airlines and booking agents affiliated to and approved by the IATA, can directly issue tickets of any Airlines, that thereafter the booking agency has to submit the details of the booking so made by them to the Airlines concerned, then only the booking made by an agent of IATA can confirm the ticket subject to the availability of seats in the concerned flight, that if the IATA agent causes delay or fails to submit the details of the passenger to the Airlines concerned, then the ticket will be cancelled due to non-submission of details within the stipulated time. It is argued by 1^st opposite party that the relation between the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is on a principal to principal basis and not as a principal to agent basis. It is argued by the 1^st opposite party that the ticket which is produced by the complainant was directly issued by the 2^nd opposite party, that the sticker pasted ticket produced by the complainant was not issued by the 1^st opposite party and that 1^st opposite party had not received any consideration from the complainant in respect of the issue of ticket. In his cross examination, 1^st opposite party has deposed that after receiving the notices from this Forum he enquired about the allegations made by the complainant, that 2^nd opposite party – agent is liable for the misconducts, that 2^nd opposite party defaulted the dealing. In his cross examination 1^st opposite party has deposed that it is the duty of the 2^nd opposite party to re-confirm the booked ticket, but 2^nd opposite party failed to do so. It is due to the omission done by the 2^nd opposite party that complainant failed to get a seat on that particular day. It is due to the failure of agent to fulfill his duties the booking was cancelled; for which 1^st opposite party is not responsible. In his re-examination when asked, whether the cost of the ticket in this case was received by Air India, 1^st opposite party answered 'No'. Complainant has not been cross examined by opposite parties 1 & 2 thereby affidavit filed by the complainant against 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties remains uncontroverted. 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties have not adduced evidences by way of affidavit or documents to substantiate their contentions in versions as such the averments in their version stand disproved. As per available evidence on records, it is apparently evident by Exts. P1 & P2 that 2^nd opposite party, the IATA approved agent, had issued the Air ticket to complainant that, according to 1^st opposite party, 2^nd opposite party failed to perform their duties to meet the formalities in booking the tickets which resulted in booking cancellation, thereby the entire burden of deficiency in service would fall on 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party has not adduced any evidence in support of their contentions in the version. There is no material before us to attribute deficiency on the part of 3^rd opposite party in relating to issuance of Air ticket. In view of the foregoing discussions and evidence available on records we are of the considered opinion that the Air ticket in dispute obtained by the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party was cancelled by the 1^st opposite party solely due to the failure of 2^nd opposite party to reconfirm the same within the stipulated time, thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party. Complainant is entitled for refund of Air fare of Rs.19,700/- from the 2^nd opposite party along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.

In the result, complaint is allowed. 2^nd opposite party shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs.19,700/- towards Air fare and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The amount of Rs.19,700/- will carry interest at 9% per annum if not paid within the said period. Parties are directed to bear and suffer their costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of April, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No. 132/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness

PW1 : P.S. Abdul Vahab

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of the flight coupon

P2 : Original Air Ticket

P3 : Copy of the computer print out

P4 : Copy of the document showing the address of the 3^rd opp. Party and details of visa transaction to Abdul Vahab.

P5 : " Flight coupon

P6 : " passport of the complainant

P7 : Power of Attorney

III. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 : S. Rajeswaran

IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL

PRESIDENT