<br /> Date of Filing: 21.02.2008<br /> Date of Order: 11.06.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 11th DAY OF JUNE 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President<br /> Smt. C.V. Rajamma, B.Sc., LL.B., PGDPR, Member<br /> Sri. M. Nagabhushana, B.Com, LL.B., Member<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 474 OF 2008<br /> Sri. C. B. Ganapathy,<br /> No.308, Rainbow Residency,<br /> Off Sarajapur Road,<br /> BANGALORE. …… COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> - V/S -<br /> <br /> 1. Sri. A. Ramesh,<br /> THE TRAVEL BAZAR,<br /> No.754, 80 Feet Road, 4th Block,<br /> Koramangala,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 095.<br /> <br /> 2. Sri. Niranjan Rajaram Gupta, - M. D -<br /> Navaras Travels Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> B-6, Ramanashree Chambers,<br /> No.3, Lady Curzon Road,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 001. .....OPPOSITE PARTIES<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed claiming Rs.50,000/- towards monetary loss and Rs.50,000/- towards costs from the opposite party on the following grounds :-<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite Party No.1 is an employee of opposite party No.2, who is the Managing Director of the Company, which operates in business in the name and style of “The Travel Bazaar” in and around the country. On 08.09.2007 the complainant approached opposite party No.1 for reservation of two International Flight tickets from Bangalore to Auckland - via - Kuala Lampur in Economy Class, Malaysian Airlines. One Mr. Mohammed Saleem, the Senior Executive of opposite party No.1 attended the request and assured that the tickets will be booked on time. On 28.09.2007 opposite party No.1 issued confirmatory mail of two Air Tickets with reservation ID No.QZ9S66 of Malaysian Airlines and tickets confirmation No.JP6N4D. The complainant had confirmed that he would be traveling on 29.12.2007. Opposite party No.1 communicated that Rs.35,000/- per person for the round trip ticket plus taxes would be applicable and the complainant had agreed to make payment for the same. Subsequently, on various occasions the complainant enquired with the executives of opposite party No.1 regarding payment schedule for the bookings. However, opposite party No.1 informed that the payments can be made towards last week of travel before departure. On 08.11.2007 the complainant visited opposite party No.1 to collect the tickets, but he was informed that Mr. Md. Saleem the person in-charge of his travel is on leave and would be back by next week. Accordingly he was requested to come again after a week. When he visited opposite party No.1 on 23.11.2007 the same reason was given. However, the opposite party collected Rs.6,000/- to obtain the visas and requested him to come again. Accordingly, the complainant visited opposite party No.1 on 01.12.2007 and he was again requested to come back next week giving the same reason that Mr. Saleem is on leave and he would come next week. On 15.12.2007 the complainant again approached opposite party No.1 to make payment and collect the tickets. At that time opposite party No.1 informed that there was no confirmed booking done in his name and demanded double the amount per ticket as informed him earlier. Opposite party No.1 informed that it would cost Rs.70,000/- per person for a round trip. The complainant showed the itinerary and requested him for explanations. The opposite parties gave evasive reply and did not comply with itinerary issued and failed to provide adequate service as per the itinerary and assurance given. Opposite party No.1 misled the complainant by stating that payments could be made towards the last week of travel and that the tickets were blocked according to the itinerary issued. The whole reason for booking the tickets months in advance was to avail lower fares as promised by opposite party No.1. Even though the tickets were not confirmed due to the negligence of opposite party No.1, the complainant was asked to pay much higher fare. This kind of negligence puts every customer at risk. The negligence of the opposite parties resulted in deficiency of service, great hardship and huge monetary loss to the complainant. The opposite parties acted in complete negligence in booking the tickets, as a result of which the complainant and his family had to undergo mental agony and huge monetary loss. The opposite parties had obtained visas without booking tickets, which denotes mischief on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant issued the letter dated: 17.12.2007 asking the opposite parties to comply with itinerary and to issue the tickets, but the opposite parties failed to issue the tickets and did not even respond to the letter. Due to the mischief and deficiency of service rendered by the opposite parties, he was forced to contact a different travel agent and with great difficulty he obtained the same tickets for Rs.1,32,046/- which is much higher than the rates mentioned in the itinerary issued by the opposite parties. He issued legal Notice calling upon the opposite parties to pay the difference amount of Rs.50,000/- in obtaining the tickets and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency of service. Instead of comply with the demands the opposite parties issued reply dated: 10.01.2008 giving evasive replies. Hence, the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 3. In the version the contention of the opposite parties is as under:-<br /> <br /> The complainant has not availed the services of the opposite parties for consideration. Therefore, the complainant is neither a “Consumer” nor the dispute raised is a “Consumer dispute”. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as it was Smt. Padmini Ganapathi, the wife of the complainant who approached them for enquiry regarding the tickets. The complainant approached them with a request for reservation of two International Flight tickets. The allegation that Md. Saleem had assured booking of the tickets on time is false. The booking of air tickets would be made only on payment of the cost of the tickets by the passenger. As on the date of enquiry during the end of September-2007, the price of the tickets prevalent at that point of time was intimated to the complainant. Without paying for the cost of the tickets the complainant requested for an itinerary. Accordingly, the itinerary was issued by blocking the tickets for the required dates of travel. The blocking is made with a view to allow the passengers to pay and book the tickets. The blocking of tickets cannot be considered as confirmation of booking of tickets. Any passenger desirous of subsequent traveling can get the tickets blocked without paying for the same. The tickets so blocked have to be got confirmed by reserving tickets within a specified time. If the tickets are not confirmed within the specified time, the tickets blocked will be allotted to other passengers. The information regarding reservation ID & confirmation Number given is only tentative subject to payment of cost of the tickets. The complainant failed to pay the costs of the tickets and purchase the same till the end of December-2007 and as such they could not purchase tickets. By the time the wife of the complainant made enquiries in December-2007, just a few days before travel, the cost of the tickets had gone-up as it was Christmas season. Without receiving the payment from the customers tickets cannot be booked. The issuance of itinerary furnished is only tentative and will not amount to booking of tickets. No amount was paid as advance for booking the tickets. The visa charges of Rs.6,000/- was colleted and visas for two persons were issued. All that travel agent can do is to block the tickets for the desired dates. But until and unless the cost of the tickets is paid the tickets cannot be purchased. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. <br /> <br /> 4. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits. We have hard the arguments on both sides. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 5. The points for consideration are:-<br /> (a) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in <br /> service on the part of the opposite parties ?<br /> <br /> <br /> (b) Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed <br /> for in the complaint ?<br /> <br /> 6. Our finding to the above points is in the negative for the following :-<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. The fact that the complainant had approached opposite party No.1 on 08.09.2007 with request for reservation of two International Flight Tickets and that opposite party No.1 issued the itinerary disclosing the Reservation ID Number & Confirmation Number on 28.09.2007 is admitted. The fact that the complainant paid Rs.6,000/- to the opposite parties for obtaining visas for two persons is also admitted. The complainant requested for reservation of two tickets for his journey on 29.12.2007. Though the opposite party had blocked the tickets for required dates as per the request of the complainant, admittedly no payment was made for purchasing the tickets and thus to book the tickets. According to the opposite parties till December-2007 the complainant never turned-up to make payment for booking tickets and therefore the tickets were not booked as requested. As contended by the opposite parties blocking the tickets and booking the tickets are two different things. It may be that as per the request made on 08.09.2007, the opposite parties blocked the tickets for journey of the complainant on desired dates. Though the tickets were blocked in September-2007 the complainant did not turn-up to make payment of the price of the tickets till December-2007. After blocking the tickets the complainant cannot expect the opposite parties to wait for nearly three months to make payment towards price of the tickets. Though, it is contended by the complainant that on 08.11.2007 he approached the opposite party to make payment towards the tickets he was asked to come after some time this fact is not admitted by the opposite parties. It is the contention of the opposite parties that till December-2007 the complainant did not turn-up to make payment towards price of the tickets and thus to book the tickets. Though in Para-6 of the complaint, it is stated that the complainant approached the opposite parties on 08.11.2007 to collect the tickets, in the Notice dated: 17.12.2007 the complainant has stated that he had approached the opposite parties on 08.10.2007. Thus the complainant himself contradicts as to the date on which he had approached the opposite parties to make payment and collect the tickets. Except the letter dated: 17.12.2007 no other material is produced to substantiate the contention that the complainant had approached opposite parties either on 08.10.2007 or on 08.11.2007 to make payment and collect the tickets. In the absence of such material, we have no reason to dis-believe contention of the opposite parties that till December-2007 the complainant did not turn-up to make payment and book tickets. Without making payment towards price of ticket a travel agent cannot be expected to wait for indefinite period to receive payment and to book the tickets. Therefore, no fault could be found with the opposite parties for not booking the tickets. As a result by the complainant by the times the complainant approached opposite parties in December-2007 the price of the tickets has gone up. Even in December-2007 the opposite parties did not deny ticket to the complainant, but demanded for the higher price prevailing at that time. The complainant also admits having purchased the tickets at a higher rate from the other travel agent in December-2007. Due to the fault of the complainant, if the price of the tickets had gone up, the opposite parties cannot be blamed. Having blocked the tickets in September-2006 it was necessary for the complainant to make payment and book tickets within a reasonable time. When the complainant himself failed to make payment and book tickets within the reasonable time, he cannot allege deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus in facts and circumstances of the case, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore hold that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. In the result, we pass the following :-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 8. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> <br /> 9. Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 11th DAY OF JUNE 2008.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />