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. 313/2004

Dated : 15.11.2008

Complainant:

C.P. Satheesh, T.C 15/1632, Minchin Road, Vazhuthacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. T.K. Ananda Padmanabhan)

Opposite party:

The Sales Manager, Sri Lankan Airlines, Spencer Building, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Eugine Fernandez)

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 08.12.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15.10.2008, the Forum on 15.11.2008 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant reserved a ticket from Trivandrum to Colombo for an onward journey on 30.03.2003 and return journey on 02.04.2003. The complainant was issued confirmed tickets by the opposite party. The petitioner left for Colombo on 30.03.2003. On 02.04.2003 when the complainant reached Colombo airport to board for his return journey from Colombo to Thiruvananthapuram he was informed by the agent of the opposite party at the airport that he would not be able to travel in Trivandrum flight on that day for reasons best known to them and that he has to board the flight the next day. The complainant had very urgent business deal at Thiruvananthapuram on the next day and he had no other option except to board the Colombo-Chennai flight with very difficulty. Complainant landed at Chennai airport and had to catch other mode of transport so as to reach Thiruvananthapuram the next day only. He was forced to travel from Chennai airport by train as there was no connecting flight that day. The net result was that the petitioner lost a very big business deal which cannot be quantified in terms of money. Even after the matter was brought to the notice of opposite party nothing useful turned out. Complainant sent lawyers notice to opposite party on 03.07.2003 demanding a sum of Rs. 100000/- as compensation for substantial damage, huge loss and mental agony. Opposite party accepted the notice and issued a reply notice stating that they are not in a position of entertain the claim and offered a complementary flight ticket to Thiruvananthapuram or Colombo. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and hence this complaint claiming Rs. 100000/- towards compensation.

Opposite party remains exparte.

The points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2. Reliefs and costs.

To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P5.

Points (i) & (ii):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant received a ticket from Trivandrum to Colombo on 30.03.2003 and return journey on 02.04.2003 and opposite party issued confirmed tickets. Ext. P1 is the copy of the ticket and travel details issued by the opposite party. As per Ext. P1 passenger name is Satheesh Chidambaram Perumal, passage is from Thiruvananthapuram to Colombo on 31 March and from Colombo to Thiruvananthapuram on 2^nd April 2003. Ticket No.

3661518106 and flight No. is UL 161. Submission by the complainant was that on 02.04.2003 when he reached Colombo airport to board for his return journey he was informed by the agent of the opposite party at the airport that he would not be able to travel in Thiruvananthapuram flight on that day for the reasons best known to them and that since he had very urgent business deal at Thiruvananthapuram on the next day he was forced to take Chennai flight and landed at Chennai airport from where he was forced to travel from Chennai to Thiruvananthapuram by train as there was no connecting flight that day. Ext. P2 is the railway ticket. Complainant further submitted that he lost a very big business deal which cannot be quantified in terms of money. Ext. P3 is the copy of lawyer's notice dated 03.07.2003 and Exts. P4 and P5 are acknowledgement card and reply notice respectively. It is to be noted that complainant has not produced any document to substantiate the huge loss on account of the failure to get business deal on that day. As per Ext. P5 reply notice dated 23^rd July 2005 opposite party

expressed profound apologies to the complainant for the inconvenience caused to him on the said flight. It is replied by the opposite party that the flight UL 161 of 2^nd April suffered an oversold situation which

resulted in few of their passengers being denied boarding and that all passengers who have been off loaded have been provided with alternative transportation and that complainant has requested the opposite party to provide alternative transportation to Madras which opposite party has obliged and that considering the inconvenience caused to the complainant opposite party offered him one complimentary return ticket to travel Trivandrum/Colombo, on economy class on firm basis. Submission by the complainant is that by offering a complimentary ticket, opposite party cannot substitute or substantiate the huge loss he suffered on account of the failure to get the business deal on that day. On going through the complaint and evidence by way of affidavit and Exts. P1 to P5 and hearing of the argument of the counsel, we have come to the conclusion that the act of the opposite party would amount of deficiency in service. In our considered opinion opposite party is liable to reasonably compensate the complainant with regard to the deficiency in service as aforesaid. We are of the view that the claim set up by the complainant is highly exaggerated. Taking into consideration of the totality of circumstances, we are of the view that it will be expedient and justice will be well met if complainant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 15000/-.

In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite party shall pay the complainant Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) towards cost of the complaint. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% if not paid within two months from the date 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 day of 15^th November 2008.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 313/2004

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Original passenger ticket and Baggage Check.

P2 - Original journey cum reservation ticket with No. 44118918.

P3 - Copy of advocate notice dated 30.07.2003.

P4 - Original acknowledgement card.

P5 - Reply notice dated 23.07.2003 issued to the complainant.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT