State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.,35/2, ... vs . R.Soundarajan,2/10-C, ... on 14 June, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru.J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., JUDICIAL MEMBERF.A.257/2009
[Against order in C.C.No.194/2007 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore] DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JUNE 2011 Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., | [formerly Air Deccan], | Appellant / 1st Opposite Party (Formerly Deccan Aviation Ltd.,), | 35/2, Cunningam Road, Opp. to Canara Bank, | Bangalore 560 052. | Vs.
1. R.Soundarajan, | S/o. N. Rangasamy, | 2/10-C, Edayarpalayam, HoH | Thadagam Road, Coimbatore 25. | |
2. K. Thiruvenkatasamy, | S/o.
Krishnan, | 545, Arun Complex, Ellai Thottam Road, HoH | Peelamedu, Coimbatore
4. | |
3. S. Arumugam, | 28/22, Shanmugavadivu Illam, | Sri Lakshmi Nagar, Ganapathy, | Coimbatore 6. | |
4. G. Mohanraj, | Respondents/1 to 8 Complainants 58, K.N. Palayam, | Sundappalayam [ PO], | Coimbatore 7. | |
5. A. Palanisamy, | S/o.
Andiappa Gounder, | 3/24, E 1, Thoppu Thottam, Moppripalayam, | K.M. Patti (via), Coimbatore 641 659. | |
6. M. Shanmugasundaram, | S/o.
Murugaia Gounder, | 3/131, Errankattu Thottam, Thattampudur, | Kaniur, Coimbatore 641 659. | |
7. P.Palanisamy, | S/o.
Pooshan Chettiar, | 18, New Etteri Street, Ondipudur, | Coimbatore 16. | |
8. A. Ramadoss, | S/o. M. Ayyasamy, | 7/S15-A, Shekkilar Street, Bharathipuram, | Coimbatore 103. |
9. Reliance Webstore Ltd., | 9th Respondent/2nd opposite party Reliance World Saibaba Colony, | No.55-58, N.S.R. Road, | Opp. to Maruti Show Room, | Coimbatore. | The 1 to 8 respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,575.60 to the complainants with interest 12% from 26.10.2006 till realization of the same, to pay Rs.1 lakh to each complainants, totaling Rs.8 lakhs towards hardship and mental agony due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and to pay the cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.21.08.2008 in C.C.194/2007.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 27.05.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellant /1st OP : Mr.A.Palaniappan, Advocate.
Counsel for 1st to 8th Respts/ Complainants :
Mr.P. Thangavel, Advocate.
For 9th Respt/2nd OP :
Served Absent.
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The first opposite party in C.C.194/2007, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, aggrieved by the order of the District Forum dated 21.08.2008, has preferred this appeal, questioning its correctness.
2. The complainants 1 to 7 and the 8th complainant booked air tickets on 26.10.2006 and 26.10.2007 respectively to fly to Coimbatore to Mumbai on 21.03.2002 and for return from Mumbai to Coimbatore 23.3.2007 at 7 a.m. As per the schedule, the complainants have reached the first opposite partys office to proceed their journey on 21.3.2007, where they were informed that the air tickets were cancelled, upon query, not giving any proper reason, failing to give in writting also despite demand.
Thus, the first opposite party as well as their agent namely the second opposite party, through whom tickets were booked have committed unfair trade practice, as well deficiency in service. The opposite parties have also failed to return the charges collected for the air tickets despite notice, thereby causing mental agony. Therefore, the complainants are constrained to file the case for the return of air tickets amount of Rs.15,675.60 with interest along with compensation of Rs.8 lakhs, at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per complainant.
3. The first opposite party admitting the booking of tickets, through the second opposite party, questioning the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, resisted the case, inter alia contending, that the complainants have not reported at the check in counter for boarding the flight, that as per the records, return tickets of the complainants 1 to 7 were also cancelled though 8th complainants was not cancelled, but he failed to report, that in fact, the onward tickets were not cancelled, whereas by the negligent act of the complainants, in not coming to Airport for boarding, they were unable to travel, for which, the opposite parties were not responsible, that for the cancelled tickets and not for undertaking journey as per rules and regulations if at all, they have to claim refund only from the second opposite party-agent, that since the first opposite party has not committed any deficiency, they are not liable for the imaginary damages, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The District Forum considering the admitted facts, as well complainants were not permitted to board the flight on 21.03.2007 based upon documents, came to the conclusion that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. It is also the further recording of the District Forum, that the first opposite party cannot shift the liability and responsibility to the second opposite party, they being the airlines. Thus concluding, a direction came to be issued, as per the order dated 21.08.2008, directing the opposite parties, to repay the booking amount with interest, in addition to, a sum of Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainants, towards hardship, mental agony and for unfair trade practice, which are impugned on various grounds by the first opposite party in this appeal.
5. The complainants 1 to 7 and 8th complainant have booked air tickets through the second opposite party in the flight operated by the first opposite party, to fly from Chennai to Mumbai, Mumbai to Chennai on 21.3.2007 and for the return on 23.03.2007, as evidenced by Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are not in dispute. As scheduled, they have not traveled in the flight on the dates said above. It is also an admitted fact, that the fare collected for the air tickets was also not returned to the complainants. Therefore, they have addressed a letter Ex.A4, which elicited a reply from the Manager of the first opposite party, as if, the tickets were cancelled, and that is why, they were not permitted to fly in the flight as scheduled. Further, the complainants were advised under Ex.A6, to approach the Agent. Thus, it is proved beyond any doubt, though the first opposite party had given tickets to the complainants, through their agent-second opposite party, they were not allowed to flight and the defence that the parties have not come to the Airport, to board the flight is proved to be false. Whoever may be the reason, for the cancellation of the tickets, it was not informed to the complainants and therefore, when they have come to the Airport, their entry was prevented, which should be construed, as negligent act, causing mental agony. Despite request also, the amounts collected were not paid. Therefore, the complainants have filed a consumer complaint, which is not challenged by the second opposite party, whereas resisted by the first opposite party alone.
6. The second opposite party is the recognized agent of the first opposite party, is not in dispute. Whenever the tickets are booked for an Airlines, the amounts goes to their account and the agent may not have any control in the money and if at all, he may be entitled to commission under the arrangement, which we are not concerned. In this way, the amount collected from the complainants namely Air fare should have reached the hands of the first opposite party, and in this view, by refusing, to get into flight, when the complainant have attempted to travel, whatever may be the reason, atleast they should have returned the fare, failed, should be construed as unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service, since they have floated a scheme by wide publicity.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant urged before us that when the tickets were cancelled, automatically the amount will go to the account of the Agent and if at all the agent is liable to refund the amount, for which, we do not have any materials or terms and conditions, between the opposite parties. Therefore, as said above, when the amount should have reached the account of the first opposite party after cancellation of the tickets, the first opposite party alone is liable to repay the amount and if there was any dispute between the opposite parties, they have to work out their remedy separately, and we are not willing to allow the consumer to suffer in this case. The District Forum considering the documents, which proved that the complainants were prevented from boarding has rightly come to the conclusion, that all the complainants, are entitled to the air fare, with interest, in which finding, we are unable to differ. But the District Forum while granting refund, ordered payment of interest also, from 26.10.2006, that too, at the rate of 12% per annum. This being the position, we feel, further direction to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-, to each of the complainants, as compensation may not be proper and necessary since the interest should be treated as the compensation amount, otherwise the complainants are not entitled to interest. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the order of the compensation, otherwise confirming the order of the District Forum as such.
7. Appeal is allowed in part, order of the District Forum is modified, setting aside the order of compensation alone, confirming the rest of the order as such. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
J. JAYARAM M.THANIKACHALAM JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT