SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

    Complainant  filed this complaint under sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986,for getting an order directing  opposite parties  to  pay Rs.57,792/- with 12% interest, the excess amount collected from the complainant and his wife, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony  and hardships caused to the  complainant  due to  deficiency of service on the part of OPs and cost of  the complaint.

   Brief facts of the complaint is that the  complainant is a retired  employee from  Indian postal department.  It was informed that a tour programme is arranged  by the postal employees of the  Kannur Division to Portblayer  and the 1^st OP facilitating the  tour programme . The complainant and his  wife have decided to visit the place  and thereupon he contacted the 1^st OP.  On  the   last week of July 2015, a representative of the 1^st OP came to Kannur and collected Rs.52,000/-  from the complainant.  At the time of  handing over the  money, the 1^st OP informed that    they would  arrange the air ticket through the 2^nd OP and the total cost of flight charge up and down journey would come  to Rs.26681/- per head.  The tour programme was scheduled from 19/8/2015  to 25/8/2015.  All the arrangements made by OPs 1&2 during  the visit and all the participants expressed their  satisfaction in the journey.  But  the complainant  received a letter dtd.30/12/2019 from the 5^th OP intimating that an enquiry has made  regarding the  air ticket produced  by the complainant  and it is revealed that the actual ticket  amount of  journey is Rs.22060/- only at the rate of Rs,11,030/- for two persons.  It is further stated that the air ticket submitted by the complainant to claim LTC bill are found to be  bogus, that the department has initiated departmental action against him for furnishing bogus travelling ticket in the tour programme.   1^st OP has handed over the air ticket   for the  each and  every passenger representing that the said ticket  is an  original one and  all passengers were boarded on the  flight under a bonafide impression  that the tickets issued to them are genuine. It amounts to unfair  trade practice warranting stringent legal action.  Hence the complainant is  entitled to get compensation from the OPs.

   1^st OP filed written version.  2^nd OP’s notice returned with endorsement left without instruction.  Hence the complaint is proceeded against 2^nd OP .  OPs 3 & 4 entered  appearance  through their counsel and filed written version.  OP.No.5 appeared in person and filed version.

   1^st OP contended that the complaint  is barred by limitation  because the alleged cause of action  of the journey was on 18/8/2015 to 25/8/15.  After that  5 years were lapsed in 11/2020.  Filing of the complaint  after the expiry of the limitation cannot be entertained. It is submitted that   1^st Op has no connection with the complainant in the above said alleged travel facility.  It is stated that  1^st OP  was employed in the  postal service and he had asked  and requested him to  contact with a tour , the 1^st OP has mentioned the name of  2^nd OP Prayan Travels  who is a well known  tour operator of  Malabar  area.  1^st OP never received  Rs.26681/- towards  travelling charges for 2 persons and never issued  any receipts.  The  transaction might  be 2^nd OP only.  Temporary air tickets were issued by Chennai holidays through 2^nd OP  and e-mail message of tickets were also issued   confirming  the tickets .   The 1^st OP never involved  in the above mentioned transactions.  The complainant is not at all a consumer of this  1^st OP and there is no deficiency of service , hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

   OPs 3&4 jointly stated that the 2^nd OP is not  an authorized agent of  these OPs.  Since the tickets  issued  to the complainant was in the year 2015, these  OPs are not in a position to retrieve the details of the said tickets from its system.  These OPs have only  received the actual  ticket fare and has  in no manner  whatsoever issued  any  bogus  tickets to  any person, as alleged in the  complaint .  If at all, any ticket has been fabricated, it has been done by the Ops 1&2 and any act of  fraud /forgery on their part, cannot be attributed  to  OPs 3&4.  All allegations pertaining to  the fabrication  of the ticket issued by  OPs 3&4 ought to be  answered by the  OPs 1&2.  The complainant is not entitled to any of the  reliefs claimed from OPs 3&4.  There is no deficiency  in service .  Hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

     5^th OP filed version  denying  all the averments  contained in the complaint , except those specifically admitted.  It is submitted that the complaint would not come under the purview of this Forum as the relation between the complainant and 5^th OP is not  a service provider and consumer, he is the employer  of the complainant and no complaint  will stand under  Consumer Protection Act 2019.  It is submitted that the complainant is a retired employee of the department.  During 2015 he had availed the facility of LTC to visit Port Blair with family.  The air tickets submitted  by the applicant were purchased through an unauthorized agency and  found to be bogus.  The government employees are required to book their air tickets directly from the  airlines authorized agents  and  IRCTC while undertaking LTC journey.  In no case booking of tickets through  any other agency is permissible. The complainant himself approves the action of  the 5^th OP to reject the bogus claim and  arrests the leakage of revenue from  the public exchequer.  5^th OP is  a government entity  and was just adhering to the rules framed by the  Govt. of India impartially.  Further submitted that  there has no  role and not  at all a party in the disputes held between the  complainant and the other OPs, hence justifiably  should be excluded from the  OPs.

      Complainant was examined as PW1, marked Exts.A1 to A7. Cross examined by OPs 1,3&4.  On the side of OPs, 1^st OP filed his chief affidavit. Examined as DW1.  DW1 was cross-examined by OPs 3&4 and complainant. 5^th OP was examined as DW2, marked Exts.B1 to B4. After that the learned  counsels of the complainant and  contesting parties(OPs 1,3&4) made argument.

    The point that arises for determination  are(1) whether the present complaint is barred by limitation? (2) whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of  any of the OPs and to what relief, if any, is the  complainant entitled.

Point No.1:  The first and  main point raised by the learned counsel of 1^st OP  is that the present complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation.  1^st OP argued that the cause of action as alleged by the complainant  has been arised on 2015 and after  5 years were lapsed in November 2020, this complaint  has been filed.  On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for  the complainant submitted that, though the  programme of travel was scheduled from 18/8/15 to 25/8/16 and they visited the arranged places as per the tour programme, only on  30/12/2019, the complainant came to know that the postal department has  initiated departmental action against him for  furnishing  bogus  travelling ticket in the tour programme.  Complainant himself  admitted that all the arrangements made by the  OPs 1&2 during the visit and  all the participants including complainants expressed their satisfaction in the journey.  After adducing evidence also it is seen that  the complainant has tendered evidence like  that.  Hence we are of the view that this complainant was filed within the  limitation period of two years, from the date of  getting  knowledge to the complainant about the  unfair trade practice  of OPs as alleged in the complaint.  So the present case is not barred by limitation.  The 1^st point is thus found in support of complainant. 

Other points:  Complainant’s  allegation is that the tour programme was facilitated by 1^st OP who was an employee of Indian Postal department, In the month of August 2015, a representative of the 1^st OP came to Kannur and collected an amount of Rs.52,000/-  from the complainant.  At the time of  handing over the  money, the 1^st OP informed that    they would  arrange the air ticket through the 2^nd OP and the total cost of flight charge up and down journey would come  to Rs.26,681/- per head.  The tour programme was scheduled from 18/8/15 to 25/8/15.  All the arrangements made by OPs 1&2 during  the visit and all the participants expressed their  satisfaction in the journey. It is further stated that the air ticket submitted by the complainant to claim LTC  from 5^th OP.   But on 30/12/2019, the complainant  received a letter from 5^th OP  intimating  that an enquiry has been made regarding  the air ticket produced by him ,that the department has initiated departmental action against him for furnishing bogus travelling ticket in the tour programme. It is learnt that the amount shown in the  travel ticket is an exalted figure and the actual   flight charge up and down journey on the scheduled date would  come only Rs.11030/- per head.  It is  also learnt that the postal department has initiated disciplinary actions against the department employees.   1^st OP has handed over the air ticket   for the  each and  every passenger representing that the said ticket  is an  original one and  all passengers were boarded on the  flight under a bonafide impression  that the tickets issued to them are genuine.

   1^st OP totally denied the allegations of the complainant, he has no connection with the complainant in the alleged travel facility, he is not a tour facilitator and he never received Rs.52,000/- or any amount from the complainant towards ticket fare and did not issue receipts for  that amount.  According to him,  as per the request of  the complainant he has mentioned the name of the 2^nd OP, Prayan travels, who is a well known tour operator of Malabar area.  1^st OP contended that the transaction in connection with the tour programme might be between complainant and Prayan travels only(2^nd OP). 

   From these two rival contention, the point to be found, is whether complainant is a consumer of 1^st OP.  As per Sec.2 (1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, a person become “consumer”.

1. buys any goods or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose

    A consumer can only file complaint about the trader.  Here Exts.A1&  A2 clearly shows that OPs 3&4 charged Rs.26681/- each from the complainant as total ticket fair charge.  Complainant alleged that he had paid Rs.26681/- for each traveler to the representative of 1^st OP.  Complainant himself has no case that the amount was given directly to the 1^st OP.  While tendering evidence also, he deposed that “^t OP.1 ഈ കേസ്സുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട് നിങ്ങളെ സമീപിച്ചിട്ടില്ല? ഇല്ല. പണം കൈപറ്റിയതും ടൂർ കാര്യങ്ങൾ ചെയ്തതും OP-2 ആണ്? അതെ.”

     Further complainants failed to substantiate any piece of material evidence connecting with 1^st OP in  this alleged travel programme.  Hence as per Sec.2(1)(d)  of Consumer Protection Act , the complainants, cannot be considered as a consumer of 1^st OP.  Exts.A1& A2 also clearly  evident that  complainant had given the ticket fare to OPs 3&4 through 2^nd OP travel agency.  Hence from the available evidence, our opinion is that 1^st OP did not have any connection with the receival of consideration from the complainant.  So we cannot  attribute deficiency in service on the part of 1^st OP and thus 1^st OP is exonerated from the liability.

     With regard to OPs 3&4, they are not  associated with OPs 1&2 in  any manner.  It is submitted that 2^nd OP is not an authorized agent of OPs 3&4.  Further these OPs have received only the actual ticket fare and has  not issued bogus ticket to any person as alleged in the complaint.  Here complainants also failed to prove that OPs 3&4 received excess amount from them on account of ticket fare.  5^th OP is a government  entity and  was just adhering to the rules framed by the Govt. of India  impartially.  Hence we are unable to find any deficiency in service on the part of  OPs 3 to 5 and thus  OPs 3 to 5 are also exonerated from the liability .

    Here 2^nd OP has not contested the allegations raised against him.  He remained absent  during the evidence time also.  Complainant alleged that 2^nd OP is the tour operator.    It is the duty of 2^nd OP to prove  that he has collected only the actual ticket fare from the complainant and not issued bogus

flight tickets.  Since 2^nd OP remains absent, and did not contest the  alleged fare, we are constraint  to believe the allegations of the complainant raised against 2^nd OP .  Considering the entire evidence, we are able to find, deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd OP alone.  Complainant herein failed to prove the departmental action  etc taken by  postal department.

      In the result complaint is allowed in part.   2^nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.29940/-to the complainant  the excess amount collected from the complainant.   2^nd opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings  of this case to the complainants, within one month from the date of receipt of this  order.  Failing which Rs.29940+ Rs.10,000-/- will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.  Complainant can execute the order as per provision in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1&A2-Copy of air tickets

A3- letter issued  by postal dept.

A4- memo issued by  5^th OP

A5 to A7- letter issued by 5^th OP dtd.30/12/19,25/9/20, 17/11/22

B1 to B3- Office Memorandum  Of Govt. of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Dept. of Personnel and Training

B4- History of ticket details

PW1- .P.Sadananthan- complainant

DW1-. K.Sethumadhavan-1^st OP

DW2- Rahul.K- 5^th OP

Sd/                                                                     Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                       MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR