State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sujith Kakkanatt Sreenivasan vs Yusuf on 31 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KERALA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/32/CC/97/2013
SUJITH KAKKANATT SREENIVASAN
PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O SREENIVASAN, KAKKANATT HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR,
CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR,KERALA.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
YUSUF
PRESENT ADDRESS - MANAGER, CREATIVE TOURS AND TRAVELS, PRABHA BUILDING,
NORTH NADA, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR - 680664,KERALA.
V S ABDUL KAREEM
PRESENT ADDRESS - CEO & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CREATIVE TOURS AND TRAVELS,
KAPADIA CHAMBERS, OFFICE NO.3, CENEMA ROAD, NEAR METRO CENEMA, DOBITALAO,
MUMBAI - 400020,KERALA.
CREATIVE TOURS AND TRAVELS
PRESENT ADDRESS - KAPADIA CHAMBERS, OFFICE NO.3, CENEMA ROAD, NEAR METRO
CENEMA, DOBITALAO, MUMBAI - 400020, REP. BY CEO & MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA.
RAJESH
PRESENT ADDRESS - SALES EXECUTIVE, QATAR AIRWAYS, LE MERIDIAN, MEZZANINE
FLOOR, MARADU PO, KOCHI - 682304,KERALA.
PADMANABHAN
PRESENT ADDRESS - MANAGER, QATAR AIRWAYS, LE MERIDIAN, MEZZANINE FLOOR,
MARADU P O, KOCHI - 682304,KERALA.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
NEMO
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
NEMO
DATED: 31/03/2026
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C No.97/2013 ORDER DATED :31.03.2026 PRESENT:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER COMPLAINANT :
Sujith Kakkanatt Sreenivasan, S/o Sreenivasan Kakkanatt House, Ghandhi Nagar, Chembukavu, Thrissur (by Adv. Manumon.A) Vs. OPPOSITE PARTIES :
1.
Yusuf, Manager, Creative Tours and Travels, Prabha Building, North Nada, Kodungallur, Thrissur - 680664
2. Mr.V.S.Abdul Karim, CEO & Managing Director, Creative Tours and Travels, Kapadia Chambers, Office No.3, Cinema Road, Near Metro Cinema, Dhobitalao, Mumbai - 400020
3. Creative Tours and Travels, Kapadia chambers, Office No.3, Cinema Road, Near Metro Cinema, Represented by CEO & Managing Director (by Adv. K.G.Mohandas Pai)
4. Rajesh, Sales Executive, Qutar Airways, Le Meridian, Mezzanine Floor, Maradu P.O, Kochi - 682304
5. Padmanabhan, Manager, Qatar Airways, Le Meridian, Mezzainine Floor, Maradu P.O, Kochi - 682304 (by Adv. Rajiv.A.George, Adv. Eapen.A. George & Adv. Sandeep.T. George) ORDER HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT This is a complaint filed under S.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The complainant decided to go for a trip to Frankfurt, Germany and other parts of Europe along with his wife and three children, for which the complainant booked 5 Qutar Air Ways flight tickets through opposite parties 1 to 3 from Kochi to Frankfurt for their journey to Frankfurt on 20.05.2013 and another 5 Qutar Air Ways flight tickets for their return journey from Venice to Kochi on 30.05.2013, after making payment of the necessary fare as demanded by opposite parties 1 to 3. When the complainant and his family reached the International Airport, Kochi, the officials of Qatar Airways verified the entire travel documents, including the return tickets, and thereafter, they issued the boarding pass to the complainant and his family. The opposite parties were well aware that the complainant and his family would not have been allowed to travel to Frankfurt without valid return tickets.
3. When the complainant and his family reached Venice Airport on 30.05.2013 for their return journey from Venice to Kochi via Doha, the complainant was informed by the 4th and 5th opposite parties that the return tickets were cancelled by the opposite parties 1 to 3. The complainant did not give any instruction to opposite parties 1 to 3 to cancel the return tickets. Even though the complainant made repeated requests to the officials of the 4th and 5th opposite parties, they failed to make necessary arrangements for the journey of the complainant and his family from Venice to Kochi via Doha as already agreed. Thereafter, the officials of opposite parties 4 and 5 informed the complainant that the complainant and his family could be provided return tickets from Venice to Delhi via Doha. They also agreed to accommodate the complainant and his family in the flight to Kochi/Calicut/Thiruvananthapuram from Doha. Since the complainant and his family had no other option, they were compelled to board the flight provided by opposite parties 4 and 5 from Venice to Doha.
4. When the complainant and his family reached Doha Airport, the officials of the opposite parties 4 and 5 informed the complainant that the complainant and his family could not be accommodated in the flight to Kochi/Calicut/Thiruvananthauram due to non-availability of space. The officials of the 4th and 5th opposite parties further informed the complainant that the 4th and 5th opposite parties could arrange flights from Doha to Delhi and from Delhi to Kochi. Accordingly, the complainant and his family were compelled to travel from Doha to Delhi by the flight arranged by the officials of the 4th and 5th opposite parties, and thus they reached Delhi Airport on 31.05.2013 at 8.00 a.m. At Delhi Airport, the officials of the 4th and 5th opposite parties informed the complainant that the flight to Kochi was fully reserved and hence, the complainant and his family could take the option of getting a flight to Mumbai from Delhi, which the complainant did not accept. The complainant and his family had to spend long hours in the transit area of Delhi Airport even without food and proper accommodation. The complainant and his family had to reside in a lodge in Delhi on that date. On 01.06.2013, the complainant and his family had taken separate flight tickets from Delhi to Kochi at the expense of the complainant and reached Kochi at 10.30 a.m. The complainant had to spend an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards lodging and travelling, including the flight ticket charges.
5. As per the tickets already booked through opposite parties 1 to 3, the complainant and his family would have reached Kochi on 31.05.2013 at 8.30 a.m. Since the complainant and his family could not reach Kochi Airport on 31.05.2013, that had adversely affected the business of the complainant and the studies of the children of the complainant. It also caused great mental agony and huge financial loss and strain to the family of the complainant. The complainant claimed an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for that reason. The complainant also prayed for getting an amount of Rs.1,50,000 towards lodging and flight ticket charges.
6. The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed a joint written version generally denying the contentions in the complaint. It was contended that the complainant was working as the Managing Director of a Travel Agency and the complainant himself booked the tickets for which the opposite parties 1 to 3 were not at all connected. The complainant provided the booking PNR to opposite parties 1 to 3 for the issue of tickets on behalf of the complainant to avail the agency commission. The opposite party 1 to 3 issued the tickets to the complainant strictly as per the PNR created by the complainant accepting the terms and conditions. The complainant approached the opposite parties 1 to 3 for the cancellation of the tickets of 8 passengers out of 13 passengers booked. The opposite parties 1 to 3 explained to the complainant that the tickets were non- refundable. However, as per the request of the complainant, the ticketing executive of the opposite parties 1 to 3 requested the airline to cancel the tickets of 8 passengers and to retain the booking of the remaining 5 passengers for travel and return. The ticketing executive of the opposite parties 1 to 3 could not make any change through their system as the booking was made by the complainant with Qatar Airways and the changes in the booking could be made only by the said airways. The opposite parties 1 to 3 made great efforts to get the complainant back to the place with proper follow up with Qatar Airways. The opposite parties 1 to 3 arranged tickets from Delhi to Kochi to the complainant and his family in Spice jet. The complainant promised to pay the ticket charges on his arrival. However, to avoid the liability, the complainant filed the above complaint on receipt of the reply notice from opposite parties 1 to 3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed OS 1952/2013 before the Munsiffs Court, Kodungallur against the complainant for realisation of an amount of Rs.88,750/-, being the ticket charges, with interest. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3.
7. The 4th and 5th opposite parties filed a joint written version. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant did not make the travel agent, namely, Benzy Leo Holiday, through whom the sub agents made various bookings, as a party in the complaint. The opposite parties 4 and 5 admitted the booking of the tickets for the complainant and his family for their journey from Kochi to Frankfurt and from Venice to Kochi through the flights of the opposite parties 4 and 5. The complainant and his family flew to Frankfurt with no problem, whatsoever. When the complainant and his family arrived at Venice Airport for their return journey to Kochi, the complainant was informed by opposite parties 4 and 5 that their tickets had been cancelled by the travel agents. However, on seeing the plight of the complainant and his family, the opposite parties 4 and 5 tried their level best to bring them back to Kochi from Venice. The flight from Venice to Kochi was full and hence they could not be accommodated in the said flight. Therefore, the only way remaining was to send the complainant and his family to Doha so that they would not be left stranded in Venice. They also arranged flight from Doha to Delhi. No seat was available to accommodate the complainant to Kochi from Doha and hence, they were accommodated in the flight from Doha to Delhi. The travel agents of the complainant had assured the complainant that they would be provided tickets from Delhi to Kochi as the mistake had been created by them in cancelling the tickets. Instead of cancelling the tickets of 8 passengers, the travel agents had cancelled the tickets of all the passengers without realising that they had cancelled the booking of the complainant and his family as well, even though the complainant and his family had already travelled to Frankfurt. At Delhi Airport, for some reason, the tickets in Kochi flight were not given by the travel agents as promised. However, the complainant and his family could travel from Delhi to Kochi as per the tickets provided by opposite party No.1.
8. The complainant and his family had already enjoyed their holiday, and they were on their way back home. Therefore, the claim for Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the delay in reaching Kerala is unsustainable. In fact, the opposite parties 4 and 5 went out of the way to ensure that the complainant was not left stranded in Venice by making alternative arrangements to transport the complainant and his family to India. The complainant was aware that they would have been left stranded in Venice, but for the efforts of opposite parties 4 and 5 to bring them back to Delhi. They travelled to Kochi on the tickets provided by the travel agents for which the complainant had consented. If the complainant had wished to stay back in Venice, then they could have waited till the next flight to Kochi, which was after four days, and it was only for the purpose of avoiding such a delay that the complainant agreed to travel to Delhi via Doha. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 4 and 5.
9. In the trial, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A9 were marked through PW1. Thereafter, Exhibits A10 and A11 were marked on 06.03.2026. DW1 was examined for opposite parties 1 to 3. Exhibits B1 to B4 were also marked through DW1. The proof affidavit was filed for opposite parties 4 and 5. No documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the opposite parties 4 and 5.
10. Exhibit A1 is a copy of the lawyer notice dated 17.06.2013 issued to the opposite parties on behalf of the complainant. Exhibit A2 series are the Postal Receipts, six in number. Exhibit A3 is the reply notice dated 03.07.2013 issued on behalf of opposite party Nos 1 and 2. Exhibit A4 is the reply notice dated 13.08.2013 issued on behalf of opposite party Nos 4 and 5. Exhibit A5 is the reply notice dated 03.10.2013 issued on behalf of opposite parties 4 and 5. Exhibit A6 is the acknowledgment card signed by the first opposite party. Exhibit A7 is the copy of the Qatar Airways tickets. Exhibit A8 is the copy of Spice jet tickets. Exhibit A9 is the copy of boarding passes. Exhibit A10 is the copy of the decree in OS 1952/2013 of the Munsiffs Court, Kodungallur. Exhibit A11 is the judgment in OS 1952/2013 of the Munsiffs Court, Kodungallur.
11. Exhibit B1 is the copy of email dated 02.05.2013 sent by Qatar Airways to opposite parties 1 to 3. Exhibit B2 is the copy of email dated 17.06.2013 sent by Benzy Leo Holiday to opposite parties 1 to 3. Exhibit B3 is the copy of email dated 24.06.2013 sent by the opposite parties 1 to 3 to Benzy Leo Holiday. Exhibit B4 series are the computer printouts of the tickets.
12. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
13. The points arise for considerations are: -
1. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 5?
3. If so, the reliefs and costs?
14. Point No. 1:- The opposite parties 4 and 5, in their joint written version, contended that Benzy Leo Holiday was a necessary party in the complaint as they were the travel agents of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5. However, it is contended in the same version that the travel agents used to book the tickets through their sub agents. DW1 admitted that DW1 was the travel agent of opposite parties 4 and 5. The complainant contended that the complainant had booked the tickets through the opposite parties 1 to 3. PW1 specifically stated that opposite parties 1 to 3 had made the booking and issued tickets to PW1 and his family for their journey. Even though the opposite parties 1 to 3 contended that they did not book the tickets and that the booking of the tickets was done by the complainant himself directly with opposite parties 4 and 5, they admitted that they had issued the tickets to the complainant as per the PNR created by the complainant, accepting the terms and conditions.
15. The complainant contended that the opposite parties 1 to 3 cancelled the tickets. PW1 also stated that the opposite parties 1 to 3 cancelled the tickets. The ticket issued to the complainant was a group ticket for 13 passengers. It is borne out from the evidence that the cancellation of the tickets of 8 passengers was necessitated for the reason that they did not get the VISA to visit the countries already scheduled. The opposite parties 1 to 3 contended that the complainant approached the opposite parties 1 to 3 for the cancellation of the tickets of 8 passengers out of 13 passengers booked and as per the request of the complainant, the ticketing executive of the opposite parties 1 to 3 requested the airline to cancel the tickets of 8 passengers and to retain the booking of the remaining 5 passengers for travel and return.
16. Since the evidence on record would probabilize the contention of the complainant that opposite parties 1 to 3 booked, issued and cancelled the tickets, the role, if any, of Bincy Leo Holiday is not relevant in this case, particularly when no evidence is available to show that Benzy Leo Holiday had any role in this matter. The evidence of PW1 would clearly show that Benzy Leo Holiday had no role in the case on hand. Therefore, even if Bincy Leo Holiday is impleaded in this case, no relief can be granted against Bincy Leo Holiday. Moreover, a complete and effective adjudication is possible, and an effective order can be passed in the complaint in the absence of Bincy Leo Holiday. In the said circumstances, it can be safely held that Benzy Leo Holiday is not a necessary party and hence, there is no non-joinder of necessary parties in the complaint. The point is answered in favour of the complainant.
17. Point Nos.2 and 3:- For the sake of convenience and to avoid the risk of repetition, these points shall be considered together. It is not disputed that the complainant booked flight tickets for the journey of the complainant and his family to Frankfurt from Kochi. The complainant and his family had travelled to Frankfurt from Kochi on 20.05.2013 via Doha in Qatar Airways Flight. The complainant and his family had to depart from Venice on 30.05.2013 by Qatar Airways flight, for which the complainant had booked 5 return tickets as well. However, the return tickets were found to be cancelled by the travel agents.
18. The complainant alleged that the tickets were cancelled by the opposite parties 1 to 3. The opposite parties 4 and 5 would contend that since there was cancellation of 8 tickets, the agents had cancelled all the 13 tickets without realising that the complainant and his family had already travelled to Frankfurt. It is not disputed that the opposite parties 4 and 5 arranged the return journey of the complainant up to Doha from Venice on the very same date. However, the tickets from Doha to Kochi were not available on that date for the journey of the complainant and his family. Therefore, the opposite parties 4 and 5 accommodated the complainant and his family in a Delhi flight from Doha on the same date. However, from Delhi to Kochi, there was no accommodation. In the said circumstances, the opposite parties 4 and 5 requested the complainant to travel from Delhi to Bombay and from Bombay to Kochi instead of travelling directly from Delhi to Kochi, which the complainant did not accept.
19. The complainant contended that the complainant had to take tickets by spending money from his pocket to travel from Delhi to Kochi in Spice jet. However, the opposite parties 1 to 3 contended that they only arranged the journey of the complainant and his family from Delhi to Kochi. It is specifically contended by the opposite parties 1 to 3 that they had spent money for taking tickets for the journey of the complainant and his family from Delhi to Kochi. Even though the complainant had contended that the complainant had to spend money for taking tickets for the journey of the complainant and his family from Delhi to Kochi, PW1 admitted during the cross-examination that the money for the tickets for the journey of the complainant and his family from Delhi to Kochi was spent by the opposite parties 1 to 3. PW1 further admitted that PW1 did not pay any amount to opposite parties 1 to 3 towards the fare of the said air tickets.
20. PW1 stated that PW1 and his family travelled up to Doha from Venice in the same flight for which the tickets were already booked. However, PW1 could not board the flight to Kochi from Doha. PW1 admitted that he did not take any new ticket for the journey of PW1 and his family from Doha to Delhi. PW1 further stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 4 and 5.
21. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant and his family could travel from Kochi to Frankfurt as decided. It is also borne out from the evidence on record that the complainant and his family could return from Venice up to Doha in the same flight for which the tickets were already booked. The opposite parties 4 and 5 accommodated the complainant and his family in a Delhi flight from Doha on the same date. However, the complainant and his family had to travel from Delhi to Kochi in Spice jet after spending one day in Delhi. The complainant reached Kochi only on 01.06.2013 at 10.30 a.m. If the complainant and his family had travelled in Qatar Airways flight as already booked, they could have reached Kochi on 31.05.2013 at 8.30 am. Therefore, there was a delay of one day in reaching back to Kochi. The complainant contended that he had to take a lodge for his stay in Delhi for one day, for which also he had to spend money.
22. The evidence on record would show that the opposite parties 1 to 3 had cancelled the return tickets of the complainant and his family without the consent and knowledge of the complainant and that itself, after they travelled to Frankfurt and hence, inconvenience was caused to the complainant and his family on their journey back from Venice to Kochi. In the said circumstances, there can be no doubt that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in this regard. The evidence on record would clearly show that the opposite parties 4 and 5 were not responsible for the cancellation of the return tickets of the complainant and his family. The evidence on record would further show that the opposite parties 4 and 5 had made all possible arrangements for the return journey of the complainant and his family to Delhi from Venice. That apart, PW1 himself admitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 4 and 5. From the evidence on record, we are satisfied that no deficiency in service can be attributed against opposite parties 4 and 5 in this regard.
23. Even though the complainant contended that he had stayed in a hotel in Delhi for a day along with his family by spending money, no material is available to prove the same. Even though the complainant had contended that the complainant had spent Rs.1,50,000/- for accommodation in Delhi for a day and for purchasing the tickets for the journey of the complainant and his family from Delhi to Kochi, the admission of PW1 would clearly show that the entire amount for the journey of the complainant and his family from Delhi to Kochi was spent by opposite parties 1 to 3 and that the complainant did not pay any amount to opposite parties 1 to 3 for that purpose. It is also to be noted that no material has been produced by the complainant to show that the complainant had stayed in Delhi for a day. In the said circumstances, the claim of the complainant regarding lodging and flight ticket charges cannot be granted.
24. The opposite parties 1 to 3 had cancelled the return tickets of the complainant and his family from Venice to Kochi and hence inconvenience was caused to the complainant and his family in their journey back from Venice to Kochi. However, since the opposite parties 4 and 5 had made all possible arrangements for their return journey to Delhi from Venice, they could reach up to Delhi as per the scheduled time. However, there was some delay in reaching back to Kochi from Delhi by the complainant and his family. However, no material has been produced by the complainant to show that the complainant had sustained any actual loss due to the said delay in reaching Kochi. There can be no doubt that due to the delay in reaching Kochi, inconvenience and mental agony had been caused to the complainant and his family. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant and his family, we are of the view that an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) can be granted as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3.
In the result, the complaint stands allowed in part and the opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) jointly and severally to the complainant as compensation towards the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are also directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. The compensation mentioned above shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of realisation.
PRESIDENT
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA :
KUMAR
JUDICIAL
AJITH KUMAR D. :
MEMBER
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
VS
C.C.No.97/2013
APPENDIX
I. COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS
PW1 Sri.Sujith Sreenivasan
II. COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS
A1 - The copy of the lawyer notice dated 17.06.2013 issued to the
opposite parties on behalf of the complainant.
A2 - The copy of the Postal receipts (6 Nos.)
A3 - The reply notice issued for and behalf of opposite party Nos 1
and 2 dated 03.07.2013.
A4 - The reply notice dated 13.08.2013 issued on behalf of opposite
party Nos 4 and 5.
A5 - The reply notice dated 03.10.2013 issued on behalf of opposite
parties 4 and 5.
A6 - The acknowledgment card signed by the first opposite party.
A7 - The copy of the Qatar Airways tickets.
A8 - The copy of Spice jet ticket.
A9 - The copy of the Boarding passes.
A10 - The copy of the decree in OS 1952/2013 of the Munsiffs
Court, Kodungallur.
A11 - The judgment in OS 1952/2013 of the Munsiffs Court,
Kodungallur.
III. OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS
DW1 Sri.Yusuf.K.U
IV. OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS
B1 - The copy of the email dated 02.05.2013 sent by Qatar
Airways to opposite parties 1 to 3.
B2 - The copy of the email dated 17.06.2013 sent by Benzy Leo
Holiday to the opposite parties 1 to 3.
B3 - The copy of the email dated 24.06.2013 sent by the opposite
parties 1 to 3 to Benzy Leo Holiday.
B4 - The computer printouts of the tickets.
V. COURT EXHIBITS
NIL
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT
KUMAR
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL
MEMBER
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
VS
..................
SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
PRESIDENT