Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting reliefs from the opposite parties.

                   2. The case of the complainant is stated briefly as follows:  The complainant herein is a Sales Manager attached to Muthoot Honda at Pathanamthitta.  On 10.01.2015 he availed two flight tickets with each in Etihad Airlines for a to and fro journey to Abudhabi along with his son vide ticket Nos.6075879250387C1 Etihad airways (EY) – 283 and return ticket dated 26.04.2015 vide ticket No. 6075879250389C1 in Etihad airways (EY) – 8705 to visit his wife who is working at Abudhabi.  For the said ticket the complainant paid Rs.37,000/- to the 1^st opposite party.  On 05.04.2015 the complainant and his son have gone to Abudhabi and prepared to return to India on 26.04.2015.  On the basis of the above stated return ticket schedule they arrived at Abudhabi International Airport at 7.30 a.m.  The schedule time of the said flight was 10.40 a.m.  When he reached the airport it is realized that the flight is going to be departed at 8.15 a.m thereby he could not to travel in that flight.  The complainant tried to cancel or alter the ticket but the official concerned reluctant to do it.  Though the 1^st opposite party agreed to bear the whole expenses of the subsequent flight charge further he did not paid it.  Anyhow, the complainant arranged an amount of Rs.30,000/- from his dear and near working at abroad and arranged two tickets to India.  It is contended that he is spent about 14 hours at the airport due to the security reasons it also caused difficulties and fear to the complainant.  According to the complainant, the mistake of the flight time mentioned in the ticket which was supplied by 1^st opposite party is a clear defect or deficiency in service on their side.  The 2^nd opposite party is also liable to the complainant because if any alteration of change of the time schedule of the flight happened the opposite party 2 is also obliged to inform the change to the complainant within the stipulated time.  Hence, this complaint for the refund of the additional expenses for the flight ticket Rs.30,000/-, compensation, cost etc. etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to opposite parties for their appearance.  Both the opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed separate versions in this case.

                   4. The version of 1^st opposite party is briefly stated as follows:-  According to him, the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  It is contended that the flight ticket in question is issued by the Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd., which is situated at Thiruvananthapuram.  The said enterprises is a recognized agent of IATA travels.  The ticket is issued by this opposite party only as a sub agent of IATA travels.  It is further contended that the complainant is not at all a consumer of this opposite party 1 and the complainant is bound to reconfirm the details of the journey prior to 24 hours of the flight time.  It is also contended that this opposite party did not give any assurance to the complainant with regard to the refund of the flight charge to the complainant as alleged.  The tickets issued to the complainant are genuine and there is no defect in that ticket.  It is the failure of the complainant with regard to the reconfirmation of the journey was the reason for the missing of the flight.  It is further contended that this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  Therefore, this opposite party requested to dismiss the case with cost to him. 

                   5. Opposite party 2 is also filed his version as follows:  According to this opposite party, the complainant has not made out any case against this opposite party and on the basis of the complainant it is seen that 1^st opposite party travel agent admitted that his staff committed a mistake by not informing the change of time to the concerned.  It is contended that opposite party 1 is not the agent of this opposite party and opposite party 1’s travel agent issued the flight ticket to their clients.  It is admitted that the departure of the flight from Abudhabi to Cochin on 26^th April, 2015 was re-scheduled to 8.15 a.m instead of the scheduled time 10.40 a.m due to the change of the climatic condition.  The 1^st opposite party was well aware of this change of the time and he should have informed this to the complainant.  Since the complainant and his son did not check in before the rescheduled departure time of the flight they were considered as ‘NOSHOW’ passengers.  If so, no fault can be attributed against this opposite party.  This opposite party stated the following articles as the condition of the carriage:

         “Article 3.3.6  of the Conditions of Carriage, which states that if the claimant does not show up for any flight prior to the Check In Deadline, Etihad may cancel the Claimants return on onward reservations and charge reasonable administrative fee;

                   Article 9.1.1 of the Conditions of Carriage which states that the flight time shown in timetables may change between the date of publication (or issue) and the date the Claimant actually travels.  Etihad Airways does not guarantee the flight times to the Claimant and they do not form part of the contract with the Claimant; and

                   Article 9.1.2 of the Conditions of the Carriage which states that before Etihad Airways accepts the Claimants booking, the airline or its Authorized Agent will notify the Claimant of the scheduled flight time in effect as of that time, and it will be shown on the Claimants ticket.  It is possible that Etihad Airways may need to change the scheduled flight time subsequent to the issuance of the Claimants ticket and if the Claimant provides his contact information, Etihad Airways or its Authorised Agent will endeavour to notify the Claimant of any such changes”.

                   6. It is further contended that since the tickets were issued by opposite party 1 (travel agent) this opposite party could not cancel or amend the ticket of the complainant and the same has to be done only through opposite party 1.  It is again stated that the delay caused for 14 hours to the complainant at the Abudhabi Airport is not a fault of this opposite party but due to security reasons and immigration law.  This opposite party made necessary arrangements to accommodate the complainant in the next available flight to Cochin Airport.  It is again contended that there is no cause of action arised against this opposite party because the ticket is issued by opposite party 1 to the complainant.  Therefore no case can be made out against this opposite party.  According to him, he committed no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant so that this complaint has to be dismissed with cost to him. 

                   7. On the basis of the complaint, version and records available before us, we framed the following issues:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

          8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as PW1,   Ext.A1 to A3 and Ext.B1 were also marked through this witness.  Ext.A1 is the copy of air ticket dated 10.01.2015.  Ext.A2 is the copy of air ticket dated 26.04.2015.  Ext.A3 is the photocopy of the identity card of the complainant.  Ext.B1 is the legal notice dated 12.05.2015 sent by the complainant to 1^st opposite party.  On the other side, 1^st opposite party he who filed a proof affidavit in his favour and examined him as DW1.  In chief examination, no other document except Ext.B1 was marked in his favour.  After the closure of the evidence, we heard both sides.

          9. Point No.1:-  In this case opposite party 1 and 2 raised a contention to the effect that this case is not maintainable before this Forum and this case is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties.  When we appreciate the evidence adduced by both sides in this case, it is clear that the complainant purchased the to and fro air ticket from opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.37,000/- on 10.01.2015.  It is also admitted that opposite party 2 issued the ticket to opposite party 1 on the basis of the consideration received by opposite party 1 from the complainant.  At the time of the evidence, the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to see that the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  It also is proved that the complainant paid Rs.37,000/- as consideration to opposite party 1 as the value of the journey ticket to Abudhabi and from Abudhabi to Cochin Airport.  So it can be easily inferred that opposite party 1 and 2 are service providers of the complainant and the complainant is a consumer of both this opposite parties.  Hence Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.

          10. Point Nos.2 & 3:-  For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  When we appreciate the evidence of this case, it is to be seen that opposite party 1 received the ticket charge Rs.37,000/- from the complainant as the agent of opposite party 2.  It can be also seen that opposite party 2 has no case to the effect that he did not receive the consideration/ticket fare from opposite party 1.  It is also evident to see that opposite party 2 issued the ticket in favour of the complainant and his son for his to and fro journey.  It is also admitted that the schedule time of the flight was 10.40 a.m and on 26.04.2015 the schedule date of return of the flight, the flight was departed at 8.15 a.m.  If it be so, we have to examine that who is responsible for the flight missing.  Opposite party 2 pleaded that due to the climatic change they ought to have changed the schedule time of 10.40 a.m to 8.15 a.m.  According to them, it is the duty of the complainant to confirm the ticket within 24 hours of journey.  When we examine, Ext.A1 ticket which is issued by opposite party 2 on 10.01.2015 it shows that the said ticket is confirmed.  If it is confirmed we don’t think that there is any further confirmation for the above said ticket.  If a clear reading of Ext.A1 shows that opposite party 1 the Uranus Air Travel at Adoor is the authorized agent of opposite party 2.  When we examine the proof affidavit of PW1, it is seen that the content of the affidavit is more or less as per the terms of this complaint.  The counsels appearing for opposite party 1 and 2 separately cross-examined PW1 and in cross he admitted that he paid Rs.37,000/- as the ticket fare to opposite party 1 and the said figure is true and correct.  When opposite party 1 and 2 cross-examined PW1 they did not raise any question with regard to the non-joinder of necessary parties in this case.  As discussed earlier, it is true that the schedule time of the flight was changed and as a result the complainant and his son missed the flight journey.  No doubt, we can see that if the airlines changed the schedule time, it is duty of the airlines to inform the change of the time to the passengers.  Here, it is so pertinent to see that neither opposite party 1 nor opposite party 2 have not take any positive steps to inform the flight time change to PW1.  It is true that opposite party 2 contended that he has not known the phone number or e.mail address of the complainant.  But at the same time, it is to see that the complainant PW1 availed these tickets through his e.mail address.  If a change is required in the flight schedule the opposite party can easily inform this change to PW1 through his e.mail.id.

          11. When we peruse the version filed by opposite party 2 Etihad Airlines it can be seen that if any change of schedule flight time is required they can re-schedule the time schedule and the change would have to be informed to the claimants of ticket by Etihad Airlines or its authorized agent if they are having contact information of the ticket claimant (traveler).  Here it is the cogent and conclusive evidence to see that the opposite parties ought to inform the schedule change to the passenger concerned.  As stated earlier, it can be seen that the complainant availed the ticket through his e.mail address.  If it be so, the address of the complainant is also with the opposite parties for further communication.  As far as we evaluate the evidence adduced by both the parties in this case it is to be understood that the opposite parties were acted without any diligence or responsibility to the complainant so that the complainant missed the flight and it caused mental harassment and financial loss to the complainant.  When we peruse the whole evidence of this case it can be seen that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to the complainant.  Hence we can say that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service against the complainant as a result the complainant and his son suffer a lot as stated above.  Therefore, we decided to allow the complaint and Point No.2 and 3 are also found in favour of the complainant.

          12. In the result, we pass the following orders:

1.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) to the complainant as the value of the ticket from Abudhabi to Cochin airport with 10% interest from the date of filing of this case, i.e. 16.09.2015.

2.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay a compensation, for   

mental agony and other expenses for an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) and a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of this order onwards.

     Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2017.

                                                                                       (Sd/-)

                                                       P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                       (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)           :    (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Aju Mathrew Oommen

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Copy of air ticket dated 10.01.2015. 

A2 :  Copy of air ticket dated 26.04.2015. 

A3 :  Photocopy of the identity card of the complainant. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Abey J. Thomas

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Legal notice dated 12.05.2015 sent by the complainant to

        1^st opposite party

                                                                                            (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Aju Mathew Oommen, Konnamoottil House,

                   Kavungumprayar Muri, Puramattom Village,

                   Mallappally Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.

     (2) The Proprietor, Uranus Air Travels, Near Kannamcodu Church,

          Central Junction, Adoor.

(3) The Manager, Etihad Airways, M.G. Road,

      Ernakulam – 682 016.

(4)  The Stock File.