A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD
F.A. 107/2007 against C.C. No. 46/2006, Dist. Forum, Chittoor
Between:
1) M/s. Bharati Televentures Ltd. (AIRTEL)
Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Partner
H-5/12, Qutab Ambience,
Mehrauli Road,
New Delhi-110 030.
2) M/s. Bharati Televentures Ltd. (AIRTEL)
Rep. by its Senior Vice-President
Office at 108-364/437/439/445
Splendid Towers, S.P. Road
Begumpet, Hyderabad-500 016. *** Appellants/
Ops 1 & 2 And
1. Mohd. Hussain
s/o. Mohd. Shanawaz
37 years, D.No. 27-89/3
Upstairs, R.N. Colony
Chittoor. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) M/s. Pioneer Corporation Services
Rep. by its Franchise
At 16-10-1/S/29, Srikrupa Market
Mahaboob Mansion,
Opp. Chermas, Malakpet
Hyderabad.
3) Sri Balaji Communications
Rep. by its Franchise
No. 18-166, Prakasam High Road
Opp. Hotel Vishunu Bhavan
Chittoor Town & Dist. *** Respondents/
Ops 3 & 4.
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. A. Venkatesh
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. T. S. Anand (R1)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER
&
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER
FRIDAY , THIS THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
****
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties 1 & 2 against the order of the Dist. Forum directing them to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,000/- together with costs, and allot flight tickets as per the choice of dates of the complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that when opposite party No. 1 offered a scheme entitled ‘Airtel Free Flight Offer’ to its subscribers providing to and fro flight tickets to the destinations mentioned in the brochure, he purchased Airtel recharge card for Rs. 2,095/- on 7.10.2005 on which he received a communication asking him to mention three preferred destinations and three alternative dates for travel. Accordingly he preferred three destinations (1) Chennai to Kolkatta (2) Hyderabad to Kolkatta and (3) Chennai to Delhi and also preferred three alternative dates to both to and fro (1) 23rd January, 2006 to 25th January, 2006 (2) 24th January, 2006 to 26th January, 2006 and (3) 25th January to 27th January, 2006. When he was asked to pay Rs. 442/- towards airport and other taxes, he paid on 19.11.2005 and submitted the same. When he did not receive any flight tickets he sent an e-mail on 25.1.2006 for which he was informed that he would receive the tickets within two or three days. After repeated communications with officials, he was informed that the flight tickets were confirmed and he had to leave from Chennai – Kochin on 25.2.2006 and return on 28.2.2006 which was against his choice of destination and date. He was made to suffer all through. He did not receive the tickets, and therefore he claimed Rs. 1 lakhs towards compensation, free flight tickets as promised together with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
3) The appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2 resisted the case. While denying each and every allegation made by him it alleged that TLC Marketing Plc. had offered and administered the said scheme. It was a necessary party and non-joinder of it entails dismissal of the complaint. Apart from it, the jurisdiction was restricted to English Courts. At any rate there was no deficiency in service on their part. However, they admitted that they provide mobile telecommunication service to the subscribers and agreed to provide ‘Airtel Free Flight Offer’. As per condition No. 12, in case three destination choices and three date choices were not available he had to give some other choice and dates. He intimated his alternative choice of Chennai to Cochin for 25.2.2006 and return for 27.2.2006. He was informed about the confirmed tickets and in fact sent them by courier informing that it was booked on ‘Air Deccan’ which was received by him on 16.2.2006. Having chosen alternative destinations and travelling dates he was estopped from filing the complaint claiming compensation and free flight tickets. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) Opposite Parties 3 & 4 franchises did not choose to contest and they were set-exparte.
5) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A6 marked, while the appellants filed the affidavit evidence of Sri K.B.S. Sarma, designation of which was not known, and filed Exs. B1 to B3.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the fact that the opposite party No. 1 had sponsored the scheme of ‘Free Flight Offer’ - nothing to do with TLC Marketing a U.S. based company, was liable to provide free flight since it had offered and sold the pre-paid recharge card at Hyderabad, the Dist. Forum at Hyderabad had jurisdiction. Since the opposite parties did not provide the confirmed tickets, it amounts to deficiency in service, and therefore directed them to pay Rs. 4,000/- towards compensation besides allotment of confirmed flight tickets as per the choice of the complainant together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite parties 1 & 2 preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that they sent the confirmed tickets of alternative places viz., Chennai-Cochin-Chennai evident from Ex. B2, and there was no deficiency of service on their part and therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
8) It is an undisputed fact that the appellant offered free flight to the complainant providing to and fro flight tickets on the dates suggested by him. He preferred travel (1) Chennai to Kolkatta (2) Hyderabad to Kolkatta and 93) Chennai to Delhi and gave three dates vide Ex. A6. It was received by the appellant and the appellant confirmed receipt of it, and informed under Ex. A2 that he would receive a call from TLC Marketing in next two or three days with the status on free flight offer. Curiously without confirming either to the destinations or to the dates it had booked flight tickets from Chennai-Cochin-Chennai on 25.2.2006 and return tickets on 27.2.2006 which was not to his convenience. The complainant asserted that he had nothing to do with those places nor he ever gave such consent. On its own accord, the appellant mentioned that “as confirmed by you, we have booked the tickets from Chennai-Cochin-Chennai on 25.2.2006 and return on 27.2.2006.”
The complainant had denied the said fact. The appellant could not prove that he had made the choice of the said place. Even otherwise a perusal of Ex. B2 e-ticket shows that , the flight ticket from Chennai to Cochin was confirmed, while the return ticket from Cochin to Chennai mentioned under the status ‘No show’. If such sort of unconfirmed ticket is provided the complainant cannot be made to travel. This conduct on the part of appellant shows that it was indulging in unfair trade practice.
9) The contention of the appellant that in case three destination choices and three date choices are not available the subscriber has to give alternative choices and dates vide condition No. 12. When the complainant has given choices and the dates, the appellant could not prove that the tickets were not available for those destinations or on the dates which he sought for tickets. On its own accord it has booked the flight tickets from Chennai-Cochin-Chennai. As we have earlier pointed out, return travel from Cochin to Chennai was not confirmed. Though the appellant stated that the acknowledgement was Ex. B3 the date mentioned was 13.2.2006 which he received it on 16.2.2006. This is all unilateral, one sided without the consent of the complainant. The terms and conditions did not permit the appellant to act on its own whims. Undoubtedly, there was deficiency in service and did not adhere to the offer that was made by the appellant.
10) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that by virtue of Clause 20 of the terms and conditions the jurisdiction is conferred to English Courts and therefore the Dist. Forum has not jurisdiction. When neither of the parties is residents of English Courts, conferring jurisdiction in English Courts which has no jurisdiction, itself is bad under law. The offer was made by appellant No. 1 from New Delhi to the complainant residing at Chittoor. Recharge card was provided after collecting the amount at Hyderabad. Therefore conferring jurisdiction to English Courts is illegal and against law.
11) The Dist. Forum has rightly awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,000/- though on lower side, however, the complainant has not preferred any cross-appeal, therefore we do not intend to enhance it, besides that the appellants were directed to provide confirmed flight tickets as per the choice of the complainant which direction was in tune with the offer made by the appellant. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
12) In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 06.11.2009.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
