R.Vijayakumar, Member

      This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

                The complainant’s case is that the opposite parties refused to return Rs.7400/- which was paid to the opposite parties as additional fair for Air ticket.

(2)

         The case of the opposite parties is that the complainant is not entitled to get refund as the opposite party had not received any undue gain from Emirate Airlines and the complainant had lost the Air ticket fare of return journey due to the cancellation of ticket by the complainant himself and due to his inconvenience only.

          The complainant filed affidavit and he was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P6 marked. The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed affidavit. DW1 and 2 examined. Ext.D1 marked.

          Heard both sides

The points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Compensation and cost

Points (1) & (2)

                 The case of the complainant is that he had reserved a ticket through first opposite party on 14/10/08 for an amount of Rs.18,282/- including service charges for his journey to Dubai from Thiruvananthapuram and vice versa.Later on the complainant was forced to cancel the return ticket due to his inconvenience and hence he forwarded a cancellation request to the second opposite party through his e-mail address on 23/10/08. Through an e-mail letter the second opposite party confirmed seat availability to the complainant for his journey from Sharjah to Thiruvananthapuram on 24/10/08 and made the complainant to believe that since the refund of the return charges will take time, he would financiate for his journey from Sharjah to Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant paid additional ticket fare Rs.7400/- .

(3)

                 The complainant had contacted with first and second opposite parties for refund of the ticket fare but the opposite parties explained that it will take time for refund as the Emirate Airlines is a Dubai based company. Even though the complainant awaited there was no response from the first and second opposite parties. Then the complainant directly contacted with Emirate Airlines. They intimated the complainant to contact with first and second opposite parties for refund of the amount. When the complainant contacted with second opposite party, as per the direction of first opposite party, the complainant was served with a back dated cheque for an amount of Rs.407/-only. The complainant is entitled for getting refund of the additional ticket fare.

                 The first opposite party contented that the attempt of the complainant is to make undue gain for the own fault by shouldering the responsibility on the first opposite party. The complainant opted for the Emirate Airlines only after understanding the ticketing policy conditions of the said Airlines Company from the second opposite party. The first opposite party had issued a to and fro ticket to the complainant is fully denied. The first opposite party issued one Emirates ticket in Economy class under fare basis TEDYPINI (Document 21148431865) for the Sector Thiruvananthapuram- Dubai -Thiruvananthapuram to the second opposite party favouring passenger Pradeep.R. The complainant has to take his Emirate Flight from Thiruvananthapuram to Dubai on 16^th October 2008 and return back on 20^th November 2008. This ticket is considered as single combined one and ticketing status of both sectors of this ticket was ok. Ticket cancellation procedures of this type of ticket is ‘if the ticket is required for cancellation, the passenger had to pay Rs.3000/- as charges and after departure ticket is not refundable’. In this case the complainant performed his onward journey. So as per policy of the Airlines, the complainant is not entitled for any refund and the only option is to perform his return journey. The complainant had taken ticket knowing all these facts. Upon the request of the complainant the second opposite party purchased another of another Airlines namely Air Arabia sector Sharjah –

(4)

Thiruvananthapuram travel on 27 October 2008 from the first opposite party. Request for refund of Emirates Airlines was processed by first opposite party and the tax factor amount Rs.407/- only was available. The complainant himself had made the mistake. It was the complainant who had cancelled his return ticket for his benefit to stay at Dubai. The cancellation and refund procedures of Airlines tickets are matters only within the ambit of Airlines. The first opposite party performed his responsibility very, honesty himself and not committed any deficiency in service from their part.

                 The second opposite party also filed separate version contenting the allegations raised by the complainant on the same grounds and facts.

                 Admittedly the complainant had reserved ticket through second opposite party on 14/10/09 for an amount of Rs.18,282/- for his journey from Thiruvananthapuram to Dubai on 16^th October 2008 and return back on 20^th  November 2008. The complainant performed his onward journey also is admitted. It is further admitted that the return part of ticket was cancelled and on his request second opposite party purchased ticket from another Airline AIR ARABA ticket and Rs.7400/- was paid for the new ticket.

                 The main issue to be decided in this case is that whether the ticket charge received by the opposite parties is refundable after the performance of one ward travel as per the ticketing policy conditions of Emirate Airlines. According to the complainant the return charge is refundable. According to the opposite parties no amount is refundable to the complainant. In support of their contentions they had produced Exts.D1 and D2. Ext.D1 is the reply letter sent by the Sales Manager, South Kerala of Emirates Airlines for the letter Ref.SB/EK/256 of Nov.09 Star gate travel Bureau, Vellayambalam. It is specifically stated in Ext.D1 that “please note that the Fare Basis (TEDYPINI) under which the ticket has been issued does not carry any refund residual value when partially utilized”. Ext.D2 is the copy of conditions of ticketing policy of Emirates Airlines which was taken

(5)

from net. It is stated in cancellation part of the conditions that “Before Departure per ticket charge INR Rs.3000/- for refund, and After Departure ticket is non refundable in case of refund”.

                 The Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that Ext.D1 produced by the opposite parties has no connection with the present case and D1 is not in any way bound to the complainant. It is further argued that the opposite party has not produced any statement of accounts in order to show how the amount paid by the complainant is reduced to Rs.407/- and that itself exposes the falsity of opposite parties case. The complainant is fully deserved to get refunded the amount which was received by the opposite parties as additional ticket fair.

                 The Learned counsel for opposite parties argued that the Fare structure and ticketing policies are decided by Airlines and not by the travel agents. The complainant is well aware that the tickets issued by the Airlines have a ticketing policy and he may loose money.

                 As argued by the opposite parties it is true that the ticketing policies were decided by the Airlines companies. While in cross examinations the complainant admitted he is well aware that the ticketing policy is fixed by the Airlines. As the complainant himself had stated, the role of first and second opposite parties is only as an agent and sub agent. The duty of the travel agent is only to provide confirmed ticket of the traveler. As the complainant had admitted himself while in cross that he had performed his journey to Gulf more than two times. He could not deny the fact that he is well aware of the ticketing policies. Though the learned counsel for the complainant argued that Ext.D1 has no connection with this case and no way bound to the complainant, no objection was raised at the time of marking this document. As a matter of fact the ticket used by

the complainant for travel is of ‘The Emirate Airlines’.Ext.D1 issued by the Emirates Airlines as the reply for the first opposite party’s letter to them based on

(6)

the report of the complainant. It reveals the honest approach of opposite parties. Ext.D1 clearly stated that the said type of ticket does not carry any residual value when partially utilized. In the instant case, the complainant had utilized the ticket partially as he had performed his onward journey.

                 Ext.D2, the copy of conditions of ticketing policy, which can be taken from their web site. The complainant had not challenged the authenticity and genuity of the contents of Ext.D2.

                 The complainant had opted for a to and fro ticket and so, the ticket can be considered as a single combine one. It is   also pertinent that the complainant is the only person who is responsible for the cancellation of return journey. The return journey was postponed due to his inconvenience. It is also pertinent that the complainant through the second opposite party had arranged the return ticket and the complainant is well aware of the fact that the second opposite party had purchased that ticket of another Airlines Company Air Arabia for Rs.7400/-. We think that demand for returning this amount from second opposite party is not genuine.

                 Another the point of argument of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the opposite party has not produced any statement of accounts in order to show how the amount paid by the complainant is reduced to Rs.407/-. The first opposite party in their version itself clearly explained that Rs.407/- is tax factor amount repayable to the complainant.

             The definite contention of opposite parties is that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. They had raised the contention is their version itself. Even then the complainant did not take any steps to implead the Emirate

(7)

Airlines as a party. While in cross examination the learned counsel for the opposite parties put a question in this regard. But PW1 answered that Emirate Airlines is not a necessary party in this litigation.

                 The complainant has stated in para 3 of the complaint that as the refund of the amount was delayed, he was forced to contact with Emirate Airlines, a Dubai based company for the refund of the ticket charges. If the complainant thinks that the Emirates Airlines is not a necessary party, what instigated him to contact with Emirate Airlines for two time.

                 As admitted by the complainant himself he is well aware that actually the ticketing policy is decided by Airlines Companies. Hence the Emirate Airlines was a necessary party in this case and the complaint is also bad for non joinder of necessary parties.

                 Considering all the facts, circumstances and the entire evidence before us we are of the view that the opposite parties had not made any undue gain from the cancellation of the return ticket of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. The complainant miserably failed to prove his case.

                 In the result, the compliant is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

                                  Dated this the 30^th day of June 2012.

                                                          G.Vasanthakumari:Sd/-

                                                          Adv.Ravi Susha     :Sd/-

                                                          R.Vijayakumar     :Sd/-

(8)

INDEX

List of witness for the complainant

PW1          - Pradeep.R

List of documents for the complainant

P1             - Photocopy of ticket

P2             - Photocopy of cancellation ticket

P3             - Photocopy of confirmation letter

P4             - Photocopy of ticket invoice

P5             - Photocopy of cancellation request send to Emirates Airlines through  

                   online

P5 (a)        – Photocopy of reply issued by Emirates Airlines

P6             - Credit note from Stare gate travel bureau

List of witness for the opposite party

DW1         - Ratheesh

DW2         - Mohammed Jakel

DW3         - G.Santhoshkumar

 List of documents for the opposite party

D1     - Letter issued to the first opposite party by Emirates Airlines

D2     - Ticketing policy in respect of under the fare basis TEDYPINI