Complaint filed on: 15-03-2010 <br /> Disposed on: 08-10-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.568/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 8th OCTOBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> 1. Mr.Paneendra Kumar.B.L.,<br /> S/o. B.N.Laxminarayan, <br /> Aged about 31 years<br /> 2. Mrs.Suma.D.K.<br /> W/o. Paneendra Kumar.B.L<br /> Aged about 27 years<br /> Both are residing at No.213,<br /> 13th Main, RBI Layout,<br /> J.P. Nagar, 7th Phase,<br /> Bangalore - 78<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> Opposite parties: - <br /> 1. Managing director, <br /> Kingfisher Airlines Limited,<br /> Registered office:<br /> The UB Group,<br /> UB Tower, Level 12, UB City, <br /> 24 Vital Mallya Road,<br /> Bangalore-01, India<br /> 2. The Manager<br /> The Travel Bazar,<br /> 12-A, 24th Main, 1st Phase, <br /> JP Nagar, Bangalore-78<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The Grievance of the complainant against the opposite parties [hereinafter called as OPs for short) in brief is that, they are the newly marred couple booked air tickets with OP No.2 a travel agent for flight of OP No.1 for travelling from Delhi to Leh. That they received confirmation by the 1st OP of flight No.IT4785. That they remitted Rs.6900/- towards Air fair from Delhi to Leh. After reaching Delhi, they came to know that no flight of 1st OP was operating from Delhi to Leh. They were asked to board Deccan Airways flight by the employees of the 1st OP. They had to go from one terminal to another terminal to board that flight. That they had booked tickets to the flight of the 1st OP which was providing food on board, Deccan Airways is a low cost carrier flight does not provide any hospitality. The 1st OP therefore by booking tickets from Delhi to Leh made them to travel in different flight caused inconvenience and indulged in unfair trade practice and therefore have prayed to award compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- and to award cost and interest. <br /> <br /> 2. Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed version. The 1st OP in his version has contended that Deccan Airways was taken over by them and their names changed with effect from 5-9-2008. The subject matter of the complaint pertains to period of March 2008 and that they took over Deccan Aviation limited subsequently and stated to had replied the legal notice and has further stated that the complainants have failed to produce tickets booked with them. Denying the complainants booked tickets to their flight have denied issue of tickets to the complainants for travelling in their flight from Delhi to Leh. The boarding passes produced by the complainants are the tickets on Deccan Airways and flight number is shown as 785 which show that the complainant had booked tickets to Deccan Airlines and not with them. Further contending that the complaint is filed after more than two years after the complainants booked the tickets, denied all other allegations and their liability and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. OP No.2 in his version has contended that no allegations of the deficiency is attributed against him, contended that flight tickets are always booked through agents, has denied that the complainants under went any hardship. This OP also has contended that the complaint is barred by limitation. Admitted to have issued tickets to complainants and has contended that he issued tickets as an agent by further stating that the 1st OP has taken 26% stock in Deccan Aviation Limited, Air Deccan has been taken over by the 1st OP as back in the year 2007 and OP is operating Deccan Airways flight as their flight and contended that no relief is sought against him has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OPs have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith with the complaint have produced copies of boarding passes, a copy of letter of OP No.1, copies of e-mails which were exchanged between the 1st complainant and 1st OP with a copy of legal notice they got issued to the 1st OP. The 1st OP has produced a copy of certificate of in corporation consequent upon change of name issued by the Government of India, Ministry of corporate affairs. 2nd OP has produced copies of billing statement, copies of tickets with booking tickets by him besides an internet copy dated 1-6-2007. Counsel for the complainants has filed written arguments. We have heard the counsel for the OPs and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. On the above materials following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainants prove that OP No.1 <br /> has caused deficiency in his service in booking <br /> tickets to their flights for the travel from Delhi to <br /> Leh though they were not operating their flight <br /> and by sending in different flight?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:<br /> Point no.1: In the affirmative <br /> Point no.2: See the final Order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Answer on Point No.1: The 2nd OP a travel agent admitted had booked tickets to these complainants for traveling from Delhi to Leh in the 1st OP flight on 14-3-2008. Whereas the 1st OP strictly denying issue of tickets to the complainants for their travel in their flight from Delhi to Leh stated that as per boarding passes produced by the complainants, they had booked the tickets in the Deccan Airways and boarding passes were given to the complainants to travel the Deccan Airlines and they are nothing to do with that transaction and have further contended they were not operating Deccan Air Flight from Delhi to Leh on 14-3-2008. The 2nd OP has produced copies of two air tickets of the complainants which authorized them to travel from Delhi to Leh in 1st OP Airlines. Whereas the boarding passes produced by the complainants disclose that those boarding passes were issued by the Deccan Airlines. The complainants and the 2nd OP have contended that as on 14-3-2008, 1st OP had taken over Deccan Airways and it is they who were operating Deccan Airways flights and tickets, money collected from the complainants was re-remitted to the account of the 1st OP. The 2nd OP has produced a copy of agent billing statement and Analysis for Navras travel private limited for the period from 1-1-2008 to 15-1-2008, in which tickets money collected from the complainants shown to have been credited to the account of the 1st OP. 2nd OP has also produced details of the complainants in they having had paid tickets cost and that was having had been sent to the 1st OP account. Copy of the invoice are also produced by the 2nd OP. The 1st OP has not at all denied genuineness of these transactions. <br /> <br /> 8. The complainant has produced copies of certain e-mails transactions exchanged between themselves and the 1st OP. On going though these e-mails they disclose that the 1st complainant brought to the notice of the 1st OP regarding purchase of tickets to travel in the 1st OP flight from Delhi to Leh under a particular PNR No. In response to that e-mail dated 18-5-2009 sent by the 1st complainant to the 1st OP, 1st OP through his e-mail dated 23-5-2009 thanked the 1st complainant for correspondences and noted to had enclosed the travel certificate for his reference and even informed the 1st complainant that they are looking forward to welcome them on King Fisher Airlines boarding again. Further when the complainants asked for e-mail tickets, 1st OP sought certain particulars and informed the 1st complainant that their staff will process it. The complainants have produced travel certificate issued by the 1st OP, on perusal of this travel certificate, it is found that the men of the 1st OP confirmed the complainants in they having had travelled with Kingfisher Airlines against PNR#DFFNSG for IT 4785 from Delhi to Leh which departed at 7.30 am on 14-3-2008. Further informing the complainants the total fair charged as Rs.6,900/-. The counsel for the 1st OP though denied this letter as not of the 1st OP but did not deny the e-mails correspondences relied upon by the complainants. Thus on looking at these e-mail correspondences between the complainants and the 1st OP and the travel confirmation letter they unerringly prove that the 1st OP issued certificate confirming the complainants having had travelled from Delhi to Leh with their Airlines on 14-3-2008. On going through all these materials in their totality and the copy of internet information dated 1-6-2007 they further prove that the 1st OP after picking up 26% stock in Deccan Aviation Ltd in the year 2007 onwards was operating Deccan Airlines from Delhi to Leh and that further proves that 2nd OP issued Air tickets to the complainants for travelling from Delhi to Leh on 14-3-2008 on behalf of the 1st OP. The first OP has no where denied in having had authorized the second OP as his agent and receipt of complainants tickets money. It is not further not denied that the Deccan Airways flight was not giving the comfortable journey and other facilities as the 1st OP was giving in their flight and that the complainants under went suffering and in-convenience besides the fact that they were misled by taking them in Deccan flight instead of flight of 1st OP from Delhi to Leh. <br /> <br /> 9. Both the opponents in their version have stated that the complaint is barred by limitation, but by considering the date of journey and date of filing this complaint, the complaint cannot be held has barred by limitation. <br /> <br /> 10. The complainants have claimed compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- which in our view is highly exaggerative exorbitant. The complainants though have referred to difference in the flight charges between Deccan Air flight and Kingfisher flight but have not given the difference in the fair to claim specific amount of refund except praying for a lumsum compensation. Considering all these aspects of the matter in their totality, we are of the view that awarding damages of Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainants would meet the ends of the justice. As the result, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> OP No.1 is held as deficient in his service and is ordered to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- each to each of the complainants within 50 days from the date of this order. Failing which, he shall pay interest at 10% per annum on the above amount from the date of this order till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> OP No.1 shall also pay cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainants. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 8th October 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> Member President<br />