KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.643/2012
JUDGMENT DATED 31/05/2013
PRESENT:
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Pradeep.R.
S/o. Ramakrishnan,
Sreekulam, Kallelibhagam P.O.
Karunagappally, Kollam.
(By Adv: Sri. B. Ajay Kumar)
Vs
RESPONDENTS:
1. The Director,
Stargate Travel Bureau,
Near Indira Bhavan,
Vellayambalam,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Santhosh,
Asian Travells,
Opposite NSS Union,
NH Raod, Karunagappally.
(By Adv: Sri. Krishna Kumar.B.A.)
APPEAL NO.643/2012
JUDGMENT DATED 31/05/2013
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
Dissatisfied by the order in C.C.No.232/09 on the file of CDRF, Kollam the complainant came up in appeal.
2. The complainant reserved air ticket through first opposite party on 14/10/2008 for his to and fro journey from Thiruvananthapuram to Dubai and paid Rs.18,282/-. The complainant was forced to cancel his return ticket and again arranged a return ticket from Sharja to Thiruvananthapuram by Air Arabia through second opposite party and paid Rs.7,400/-. It is the allegation of the complainant that the complainant was made to believe that the Emirates Airlines is a Dubai based company and would take time to process the refund. After several requests made by the complainant, the Emirates Airlines instructed the complainant to approach the second opposite party since the ticket was issued by the second opposite party. An amount of Rs.407/- only was offered as refund on 31/12/2008. It is also stated in the complaint that the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.7,400/- which he had paid as return ticket charges. The opposite party refused to give the amount due to the complainant and is liable to compensate for the negligence and deficiency in service. The complainant also prayed for Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of proceedings.
3. The first opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is filed to make undue gain for his own fault. The first opposite party issued to and fro ticket to the complainant is denied as the tickets were issued by Emirates Airlines for Thiruvananthapuram-Dubai, Dubai-Thiruvananthapuram through the second opposite party. There had no direct dealings with the opposite party. It is also stated in the version that economy class ticket under the fare basis ‘TEDYPINI’ issued to the complainant in Emirate Flight on 16/10/2008 and the return journey on 20/11/2008 and the ticket status of both sectors of the ticket was OK. This ticket is considered as single combined one and the fare is as low as it is booked in advance by the complainant. It is also stated that the cancellation of ticket before departure the passenger had to pay Rs.3,000/- as charges and if it is after departure no refund is available. In this case the complainant performed the onward journey to Dubai on 16/10/2008 and thereafter he cancelled the ticket. So as per the policy of airlines the complainant is not entitled for any refund. The cancellation and refund procedures of Airline tickets are matters within the ambit of the Airlines and are not decided by the first opposite party. The loss suffered by the complainant if any is due to the fault committed by the complainant. The complainant at his own interest cancelled the ticket and the complainant is not entitled for any refund as per the ticket cancellation procedure.
4. It is admitted by the second opposite party that a ticket was issued in economy class under ‘TEDYPINI’ fare basis from Thiruvananthapuram-Dubai-Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant was on visiting visa and he should hold an OK return ticket. So he was offered with OK ticket for the journey from Thiruvananthapuram to Dubai and back. It is the complainant who cancelled the OK ticket issued to him for the return journey on 20/11/2008. The complainant also requested the second opposite party to issue ticket on 28/10/2008 in Air Arabia from Sharjha to Thiruvananthapuram and paid an amount of Rs.7,400/-. As per the Airlines regulations after performing the onward journey the passenger is not entitled for refund of the return ticket. This policy of the Airlines was very well known to the complainant and he opted for getting the refund of the ticket charges of Rs.7,400/- which was denied by the second opposite party. Further the refund request of the complainant was processed by the opposite party and issued the entitled amount of Rs.407/- for the cancellation of return journey. The complainant was not willing to accept that money and threatened the second opposite party. There is no collusion on the part of 2nd opposite party as the cancellation and refund are within the ambit of the Airlines and not with the travel agents. The second opposite party is not liable to refund any amount for the cancellation of the OK ticket issued to the complainant.
5. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exbts.P1 to P6, on the part of opposite parties DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exbt.B1 marked. On considering the evidence and on hearing the parties the Forum Below dismissed the complaint.
6. The appellant’s counsel submitted that the appellant purchased to and fro ticket from Thiruvananthapuram to Dubai and back from the second opposite party on payment. As the complainant was on travel visa, it is mandatory that to and fro journey tickets should be OKayed. On 16/10/2008 he travelled from Thiruvananthapuram to Dubai and later the complainant was forced to cancel his return ticket due to his own decision. He forwarded a cancellation request to the second respondent on 23/10/2008. The second respondent confirmed the seat availability for the journey from Sharja to Thiruvananthapuram on 28/10/2008 and made the appellant believe that for the refund of the return charges it will take time. The complainant paid additional ticket fare of Rs.7,400/-. The appellant’s counsel also submitted that the refund of ticket fare is done by the Emirates Airlines which is a Dubai based company. On contacting the Emirates Airlines the appellant was directed to contact the second respondent for refund of the return ticket and the appellant was served with a cheque for Rs.407/-. This act of the opposite party definitely come under deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the appellant claimed compensation from the opposite parties. The finding of the Forum is absolutely wrong in holding the complaint that the ticket was cancelled as per the appellant’s own wish. The appellant is entitled to the refund of return ticket charges with interest and also for compensation.
7. The counsel for respondent resisted the arguments made by the appellant as the appellant was well aware of the Airlines policy conditions and he was informed of the details of ticketing. The visiting visa was issued only with the OKayed tickets for the return journey. The appellant also requested for economy class and he was availed the ticket under the fare basis TEDYPINI. Under this scheme for cancellation of tickets the passenger had to pay Rs.3,000/- as cancellation charges and after departure, ticket is not refundable in case of cancellation. It is clear from the documents that the appellant had availed the ticket for boarding in the Emirate Airlines Flight to Dubai and performed his onward journey. He also pointed out that the policy conditions does not permit the appellant for refund as the option left behind him was only to perform his return journey on that ticket. It is clear from the documents that the complaint was processed by opposite party and the tax factor amount of Rs.407/- was offered to the appellant. The cancellation and refund of Air tickets are purely under the control of Airlines and opposite parties, travel agent has nothing to do with it. It is on the part of the appellant who informed to cancel his return ticket and the second respondent was contacted by the appellant for ticket from Sharja to Thiruvananthapuram. So raising a claim for refund of the return ticket by the appellant is estopped by his own act. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
8. We have heard both the counsels and gone through the documents. We find that the appellant/complainant purchased Air tickets through the opposite parties. Being a visiting visa OKayed ticket for to and fro journey is to be taken by the complainant. After complainant’s departure to Dubai, the second respondent was requested to arrange for return ticket for the complainant on 28/10/2008 through Air Arabia and the amount paid cannot be refunded as the return journey was cancelled by the complainant himself and the ticket policy conditions does not permit refund of the ticket charges. The appellant has not made out any reason or ground to show any loss or damage caused by the opposite parties. It is very clear from the complaint itself that the complainant himself requested for change of return journey. Hence we find no ground to consider the claim of the appellant.
In the result, appeal is dismissed and we uphold the order passed by the Forum Below.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum below along with LCR.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sa.
KERALA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.643/2012
JUDGMENT DATED 31/05/2013
sa
