BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 460/2003 Filed on 19.11.2003

Dated : 30.07.2010

Complainant:

Bose Mathew, resident of Poykayil Puthen Veedu, Kottara, Meeyannoor P.O, Kollam District now employed at Chalmers Engineering, Dubai represented by his power of attorney holder.

(By adv. R. Gireesh Babu)

Opposite parties :

1. Oman Air, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Manager.

   (By adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

2. Akbar Travels of India, Regency Tower, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Manager.

   (By adv. P.S. Shereef)

3. Raju. C.Y, Proprietor, Ebenezer Travels, Alimukku, Punalur, Kollam.

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 17.07.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and reheard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30.04.2010, the Forum on 30.07.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party to purchase a flight ticket for travel by the flight operated by the 1^st opposite party from Thiruvananthapuram to Dubai on 04.07.2003 via Muscat. The 3^rd opposite party handed over the flight ticket bearing No. 3684208689 2 issued by the 2^nd opposite party, who is an IATA approved travel agent of the 1^st opposite party, that the said ticket bearing the status “OK” which was valid and confirmed one, that complainant reached Thiruvananthapuram Airport at 04:00 hours on 04.07.2003 to travel in the said flight whereupon he was refused the boarding pass requisite for travelling in the aforesaid flight on the flimsy reason that his name did not figure in the list of passengers. 1^st opposite party had no right or authority whatsoever to deny travel to the complainant. Due to the said denial, complainant could not report for duty in time at Dubai promptly which resulted in severe pecuniary and metal hardship to the complainant. The said hardship was occasioned to the complainant due to the utter deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice committed by opposite parties in denying the right of travel to the complainant as mentioned above. So complainant issued a registered notice through his lawyer dated 04.07.2003 to opposite parties calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. Opposite parties accepted the same and sent a reply dated 18.07.2003 requesting for a copy of the flight ticket. Though complainant handed over a copy of the flight ticket to the counsel of the 1^st opposite party, no action was taken by opposite parties to redress the grievances of the complainant. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation along with costs.

1^st opposite party filed version contending interalia that complainant was holding a ticket of the 1^st opposite party, that it was confirmed for travel in flight No. Wy816 of the opposite party on 04.07.2003, that the name of the complainant did not figure in the passenger manifest on the aforesaid date, that there was therefore no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the airline in not issuing boarding pass to the passenger for his travel. Opposite parties do not admit the occurrence of any consequences as alleged by the complainant. 1^st opposite party disown and disclaim any responsibility for the incident of refusal of boarding pass to the complainant and the alleged consequential delay in his reporting for duty. The claim is exorbitant, highly excessive and hypothetical also.

2^nd opposite party filed version contending interalia that neither deficiency in service nor negligence is attributable to 2^nd opposite party with respect to the alleged refusal of boarding of the complainant on the flight of the 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party was approached by an IATA approved travel agent M/s PAMA Air Travels India, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram for issue of a ticket for a passenger from Thiruvananthapuram to Dubai. The seat booking and its reciprocal confirmation was made by the said PAMA Air Travel India through their own computer system, that as requested by PAMA Air India, 2^nd opposite party issued ticket with O.K status as per the details provided by them. The 2^nd opposite party has no direct contact with the 3^rd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party has no role in the incident alleged and no deficiency in service can be attributed to 2^nd opposite party. Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation sought for or otherwise.

3^rd opposite party sent a reply stating that he had acted as a sub agent and handed over a ticket bearing OK status issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

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

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to cost?

In support of the complaint, the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant has filed affidavit, and has marked Exts. P1 to P6. In rebuttal, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have filed affidavits, and have marked Exts. D1 & D2. 3^rd opposite party has not filed affidavit.

Points (i) to (iii):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant approached 3^rd opposite party to purchase a flight ticket for travel by the flight operated by the 1^st opposite party from Thiruvananthapuram at 7 p.m on 04.07.2003 to Dubai via Muscat and accordingly 3^rd opposite party handed over a flight ticket issued by the 2^nd opposite party who is an IATA approved travel agent of the 1^st opposite party, that the said ticket bearing the status “OK” which was a valid and confirmed one, that complainant reached Thiruvananthapuram airport at 4.00 hrs. on 04.07.2003 to travel in the said flight whereupon he was refused the boarding pass on the flimsy ground that his name did not figure in the list of passengers, thereby he could not report for duty in time at Dubai, which resulted in severe pecuniary and mental hardship to him. In rebuttal, 1^st opposite party has contended that complainant was holding a ticket of the 1^st opposite party, which was not confirmed for travel in the said flight on 04.07.2003, that the name of the complainant was not figured in the passenger manifest on the aforesaid date. It has also been contended by 1^st opposite party that no travel agent had liaised with the 1^st opposite party for seat confirmation of the complainant for the Dubai boarding flight for travel on 04.07.2003 and that 1^st opposite party has no role in the incident as the complainant's travel agent had committed default in confirming the ticket. It has been the stand of the 2^nd opposite party that, 2^nd opposite party had no direct or indirect contact or transaction with the complainant or his travel agent, the 3^rd opposite party, that no money transaction took place between the complainant or 3^rd opposite party with 2^nd opposite party. 3^rd opposite party has sent a letter stating that as a sub agent he handed over the flight ticket bearing status 'OK', issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant, that as the complainant could not travel on the scheduled date, he arranged ticket on another date as suggested by the complainant. Ext. P1 is the copy of the flight ticket of Oman Air issued by the 2^nd opposite party, Akbar Travels of India. Ticket No. is 3084 208689, Name of passenger: Bose Mathew, status OK, passage from Thiruvananthapuram to Dubai. Ext. P2 is the copy of the advocate notice. Ext. P3 (a) (b) & (c) are the postal receipts dated 15.07.2003. Ext. P4(a), (b) & (c) are the acknowledgement cards. Ext. P5 is the reply sent by 1^st opposite party to Ext. P2 notice, wherein complainant was requested to furnish a copy of his flight ticket within a reasonable period of 15 days. Ext. P6 is the copy of the letter from the counsel of the complainant to the counsel of the 1^st opposite party stating that he has enclosed the copy of the ticket, issued by 1^st opposite party to complainant, as requested vide Ext. P5. Ext. D1 is the copy of the passenger manifest furnished by 1^st opposite party. Ext. D2 is the copy of the passenger list furnished by 2^nd opposite party. It is pertinent to point out that Ext. P1 Air Ticket of 1^st opposite party bearing status 'OK' is seen issued by 2^nd opposite party to the complainant and admittedly, complainant could not travel on the scheduled date due to denial of boarding pass by the 1^st opposite party on the ground that complainant's name did not figure in the list of passengers. The contention of 1^st opposite party that 1^st opposite party is not responsible for the incident and they may not be held for its consequences cannot be acceptable since agent of the 1^st opposite party had issued the air ticket of the 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party also cannot escape from the incident since 2^nd opposite party is an IATA approved travel agent and their name is stamped in Ext. P1 Air Ticket. The contention of the 2^nd opposite party that they had no direct or indirect contact or transaction with the complainant or his travel agent cannot be acceptable on the sole reason that 2^nd opposite party's name is there in Ext. P1. Nowhere in Ext. P1, 3^rd opposite party's name is mentioned as agent of the 1^st opposite party. According to 2^nd opposite party he was approached by M/s PAMA Air Travels India for issue of a ticket for the complainant on booking/confirmation of seat made by them directly through their own computer system. 2^nd opposite party has not furnished any such document to show that they were approached by M/s PAMA Air Travel Agencies. On going through Ext. P1 we find that opposite parties 1 & 2 have issued air ticket to complainant with 'OK' status. No evidence is adduced by opposite parties 1 & 2 to prove otherwise. In view of the foregoing discussions and evidence available on records, we find denial of boarding pass to 'OK' status air ticket holder will amount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 & 2 shall jointly and severally pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation along with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Opposite parties 1 & 2 shall pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

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 July 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 460/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of the flight ticket of Oman Air.

P2 - Copy of the advocate notice.

P3 - Postal receipts.

P4 - Acknowledgement cards.

P5 - Copy of the reply sent by 1^st opposite party.

P6 - Copy of the letter from the counsel of the complainant.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of the passenger manifest furnished by 1^st opposite party.

D2 - Copy of the passenger list furnished by 1^st opposite party.

PRESIDENT

jb