National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Utkal Maheshwari & Anr. vs Cox & Kings Ltd. & Anr. on 11 March, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 93 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 10/10/2019 in Appeal No. 1043/2018 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. UTKAL MAHESHWARI & ANR. S/O. SAMPAT MAHESHWARI, R/O. MAHESH KUTEER, SHAHJI MOHALLA, MANGLA CHOWK, BHILWARA RAJASTHAN-311001 2. SMT. INDRA PORWAL W/O. UTKAL MAHESHWARI, R/O. MAHESH KUTEER SHAHJI MOHALLA, MANGLA CHOWK, BHILWARA RAJASTHAN-311001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. COX & KINGS LTD. & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT TURNER MORISON BUILDING, 16, BANK STREET, FORT MUMBAI-400001 MAHARASHTRA 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGD. OFFICE AT 24 WHITE ROAD, CHENNAI-600014 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Ms. Vikas Jain, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 11 Mar 2020 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The complainant / petitioner and his wife purchased a package tour known as 'Winter Group Holidays Super Saver Andaman with Air Package' from the respondent Cox & Kings Limited. The flight of the complainants was to depart from New Delhi to Port Blair on 21.1.2015 and he and his wife were to return from Port Blair to New Delhi on 26.01.2015. A sum of Rs.81,233/- was charged from them, by the respondent, for the Package. The complainant and his wife left Bhilwara for New Delhi on 19.1.2015 and reached New Delhi on 20.01.2015. In the night of 20.01.2015, they were informed by the carrier namely Jet Airways that their flight had been rescheduled. They contacted the respondent Cox & Kings but no help was provided to them. The complainant and his wife had to stay in a Hotel in the night; extension of the tour period was also refused by the respondent.
2. The complainant and his wife reached airport at New Delhi on 21.01.2015 and at the check-in time they were informed that their ticket was not confirmed from Kolkata to Port Blair though they had confirmed tickets from New Delhi to Kolkata. Again no help to the complainant and his wife was provided by the respondent. The complainant and his wife therefore had to return back to the hotel so that they could take a direct flight on 22.01.2015 to Port Blair. When the complainant and his wife reached the Airport at 3 pm on 22.01.2015, again they were informed that they had confirmed ticket only upto Kolkata and that their tickets from Kolkata to Port Blair were not confirmed. They called up the respondent Cox & Kings, who were requested to either provide the confirmed tickets or to refund the amount, which the respondent had charged from them. However, this was denied to the complainants, who had to cancel the trip and return to Bhilwara, without undertaking the trip to Port Blair. The complainant thereafter, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, impleading Cox & Kings as well as its insurer United Insurance Co. Ltd. as the opposite parties in the consumer complaint.
3. The complaint was resisted by the respondent Cox & Kings Ltd., which inter-alia stated in its written version that there was no defect or deficiency on their part in rendering services to the complainant and his wife. They however, admitted having sold the package to the complainants for a consideration of Rs.81,232/-.
4. The District Forum allowed the consumer complaint and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.81,232/-, which the complainants had paid for the package, along with compensation, cost of litigation, hotel expenses etc. making a total sum of Rs.1,98,232/-.
5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondents approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. Vide impugned order dated 10.10.2019, the State Commission allowed the appeals and consequently dismissed the consumer complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner / complainant is before this Commission.
6. It is evident from the facts noted hereinabove that the entire grievance of the complainants is on account of cancellation of the flight. Though, tickets for the said flight were sold to them by the respondent Cox & Kings Ltd., they were not in any manner responsible for the cancellation of the flight by the carrier namely Jet Airways. While selling tickets to the complainant and his wife, respondent Cox & Kings Ltd., was acting only as an agent of the Jet Airways and being agent of a disclosed principal, and there being no impediment at that time in filing a complaint against the carrier, they were not liable for the acts and omissions on the part of the said disclosed principal. A reference in this regard can be made to the provisions of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act. It would also be pertinent to note here that it was not at all difficult for the complainants to file a consumer complaint against the Jet Airways at the time they chose to file the said complaint only against the Cox & Kings and United Insurance Co. Ltd.
7. As far as United Insurance Co. Ltd. is concerned, there is no privity of contract between the said company and the complainants, no policy having been issued by the said company to the complainants.
8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the view taken by the State Commission does not call fall any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.
9. It is however, made clear that dismissal of the complaint shall not come in the way of the complainants filing a fresh complaint or availing any other remedy against the carrier Jet Airways Ltd. If the complainant files a consumer complaint against the Jet Airways, he shall also be entitled to seek condonation of delay in filing the consumer complaint, in terms of the proviso to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.
The revision petition stands dismissed.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER