State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Tyrone Pires, vs Mr. Xavier Rodrigues, on 15 January, 2015
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI GOA FA No. 88/14 Mr. Tyrone Pires, Major, Bachelor, House No. 494, Dandevaddo, Chinchinim, Salcete, Goa. ..Appellant V/s. Mr. Xavier Rodrigues, Major, Manager, Paramount Travels Antonio Dias Bldg., Opp. Union Bank of India, Margao, Salcete, Goa 403601. .Respondent Appellant/Complainant is represented by Adv. Shri. Tarzan DCosta. Respondent is represented by Adv. Ms. A.A. Razak. Coram: Shri. Justice N.A. Britto, President Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav, Member Dated: 15/01/2015 ORDER
[ Per Justice Shri. N. A. Britto, President] This is a complainants appeal and is directed against final order dated 30/09/14 of the Lr. District Forum at Margao by which the consumer complaint filed by the complainant on 10/10/13 has been dismissed.
2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of this appeal and for that the parties to this appeal are being referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint.
3. The complainant wanted to travel from Goa to Copenhagen (Denmark) Via Doha Qatar and for that the complainant approached one Don Almeida to complete immigration facilities, and the OP, the agent of Qatar Airways, for the tickets. The complainant purchased the tickets on 5/11/12 and travelled to Copenhagen via Doha on 09/11/12.
4. The complaint was filed with two fold grievances. The first grievance of the complainant is that the OP played a fraud on the complainant by booking the return ticket upto Mumbai instead of booking the same to Goa although the complainant had paid full return ticket fare from Copenhagen to Goa. The second is that the OP did not provide to the complainant food and accommodation by providing to the complainant STPC (stop over paid by career voucher) provided by the Qatar Airways. There is no dispute that as complainants return flight had a halt of more than eight hours at Doha, the complainant was entitled to such a voucher.
5. The complainant filed his own affidavit in support of his complaint, while the OP filed his own affidavit as well as that of Don Almeida and produced an email dated 13/11/12 as well as a letter dated 30/01/14 of Qatar Airways stating that the complainant had fully utilized the tickets but had not contacted the transfer desk to avail the hotel accommodation which was offered as per their records.
6. The Lr. District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that the complainant had produced nothing on record to suggest that the complainant had paid for the cost of the ticket from Bombay to Goa or that the return destination sought for by the complainant was Goa and not Bombay. The Lr. District Forum also observed that the ticket issued by the OP clearly showed the date, the time and the fare for each sector which did not include Bombay-Goa sector and which ticket was issued to the complainant on 5/11/12 further observing that in case the ticket was not correctly issued it was the duty of the complainant to have brought the same to the notice of the OP immediately on receipt of the ticket.
The Lr. District Forum also observed that the records showed that the STPC voucher was issued and handed over to the complainant at the time of the issuance of ticket and that the records also showed that the same was also sent on 13/11/12 by email to the complainant alongwith the said STPC which was not denied by the complainant, and, moreover the Qatar Airways had informed the OP that the complainant did not turn up at the transfer desk at Doha airport to avail the said facility of food and accommodation.
7. We have heard the lr. advocate of the parties and perused the record. The complainant has now sought to introduce certain new facts which were not disclosed by him before the trial Forum. The complainant is now seeking to introduce his sickness card; that he was not represented by an advocate before the District Forum; and that he had approached the Qatar Airways at Doha and was told by Qatar Airways that Qatar Airways was not in a position to help them as he did not have the STPC voucher with him.
8. Admittedly, the complainant travelled alone on 09/11/12 after booking the tickets on 5/11/12 and as such it was the duty of the complainant to find out whether he was issued the ticket by the OP correctly or not. The complainant was not a novice in air travel. The complainant had from Qatar Airways a privilege card thereby suggesting that the complainant was a frequent traveler.
Whether the said privilege card was issued to the complainant on 09/01/14 or prior to it would be of no consequence. Otherwise also we are told by the Lr. Advocate of the complainant that the complainant works as a cook in USA. If that be so, the Complainant must have been travelling to his home in Goa, atleast once a year. The complainant is also an e-savvy person as the complainant gave his email address to the OP, and, otherwise it also can be seen that he has been corresponding with Qatar Airways by email as can be seen from his letters on record dated 29/11/12, 5/12/12 and 6/12/12, etc. written to the Qatar Airways. The complainant also had the benefit of legal advice as can be seen from legal notice dated 20/08/13 sent by the complainant to the OP in as much as the complainant was also represented before the District Forum at the stage of admission by an advocate. We do not know why the complainant chose to abandon his advocate, thereafter. The complainant claims for the first time in this appeal that he had met the Manager at Doha only to be informed that they could not help the complainant as the complainant did not have STPC. This is a clear improvement made by the Complainant as an afterthought only to overcome the contents of letter dated 30/01/14 issued by Qatar Airways saying that the complainant had utilized the tickets but had not contacted the transfer desk to avail STPC facilities which were offered as per their records.
9. The complainant returned to Mumbai, as per tickets purchased by him on 16/11/12 at 3.10 p.m. and there is total silence on part of the complainant thereafter till the complainant filed a police complaint on 26/11/12. The complainant did not state as to when he returned to Goa from Mumbai or by which mode of transport, as that would have lent some corroboration to the case of the complainant which is entirely based on complainants own self serving statements without any corroboration. One need not accept every avernment made by the Complainant as a gospel truth, without some corroboration. The complainant pleaded that the ticket issued to him did not have the second page containing return ticket particulars and he accepted the same in good faith and proceeded to Dabolim on 09/11/12 to embark the plane on his way to Copenhagen. This we find to be highly improbable. As a prudent and frequent traveller the complainant ought to have verified the ticket to find not only to when he was going but also when he was returning and to which place. The OP has categorically stated that the complainant had specifically requested for the return ticket up to Mumbai and that the complainant had also requested to fly only by Qatar Airways on specific dates and accordingly the OP had issued the ticket from Goa to Copenhagen via Doha with return to Mumbai at a price of Rs. 51,970/- being the cost of the ticket and Rs. 589/- being service tax. The said Don Almeida has also stated that he had blocked a ticket for the complainant and had gone alongwith him to purchase the ticket and was personally present when the complainant had purchased the return ticket only upto Mumbai and that after checking all details the complainant accepted the ticket from Goa to Copenhagen via Doha and return ticket from Copenhagen to Mumbai via Doha. A submission is made on behalf of the complainant, that Don Almeida is OPs person.
In our view, the evidence of Don Almeida cannot be discarded by giving such label to him in as much as the complainant had also approached the said Don Almeida to clear his immigration.
The version of the complainant is self serving with no corroboration whatsoever while the version of the OP is corroborated by the said Don Almeida and therefore the Lr. District Forum could not be faulted in not accepting the first grievance of the complainant.
10. As far as the second grievance of the complainant is concerned, the OP has stated that the complainant alongwith the ticket was handed over STPC provided by Qatar Airways. The complainant was also sent an email by the OP on 13/11/12 alongwith the ticket as well as STPC with STPC No. 317901. The complainant has chosen not to make Qatar Airways as party to the complaint. Qatar Airways has confirmed that a hotel room was booked for the complainant on 14/11/12 and that the complainant although utilized the tickets did not contact the transfer desk to avail the hotel accommodation which were offered as per their records. The case of the OP that the complainant was supplied with STPC voucher alongwith the ticket is supported by the said Don Almeida. If the complainant was entitled to the said voucher there is no reason why the OP would not have provided the same to the complainant and there is also no reason why the said Don Almeida who have supported the OP in stating that the complainant was issued with the said STPC voucher alongwith the ticket. The submission made on behalf of the complainant is that in case the complainant was handed over with the STPC voucher alongwith the ticket, there was no need for the OP to send the same alongwith email on 13/11/12. On behalf of the OP, it is submitted that on 13/11/12 not only the STPC voucher was sent but also the ticket, as a matter of courtesy to the passengers booked by them.
The complainant does not deny having received the e-ticket as well as STPC voucher by email on 13/11/12 but the complainant contends that he had not opened his email account to find out about the same. If that be the case the complainant has no one to blame except himself. Firstly, the least which was expected of the complainant, when he knew that he had to wait for more than eight hours at Doha for his connecting flight is to approach the transfer desk of Qatar Airways to find out whether the airline would provide any facilities to him. The complainant did not do anything of that sort nor tried to get in touch via email either with the OP or the Qatar Airways when in fact STPC voucher was sent to him and could be said to be in his possession but only a click away. The Complainant also ought to have known about the long halt at Doha, from day one, so to say, when he purchased the ticket.
11. The last submission made on behalf of the complainant is with reference to Section 26 of the C.P. Act. It is submitted that no reasons have been assigned to say that the complaint is frivolous to impose costs of Rs. 15,000/-.
12. Nowhere, we find that the complaint has been dismissed being frivolous or vexatious.
We are also not inclined to interfere with the order awarding costs more so because we are dismissing the appeal leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
13. Appeal dismissed.
[Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav] [Justice Shri N. A. Britto] Member President sp/-