STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 263 of 2017
AGAINST
CC SR No. 558 of 2017, District Forum I, Hyderabad
Between :
01. Afshan Sohale, W/o Abdul Faheem,
Age : 48 years, Occ : House hold,
R/o 7-771/A2, Ibrahim Manzil,
Mijgari Gunj Road, Kalaburai
- Nafeesunnisa Begum, W/o Late Mohd Haneef
Age : 65 years, Occ : Household
R/o # 7-771/A2, Ibrahim Manzil
Mijgori Gund Road, Kalaburagi
- Seema Fatima, W/o Mohammed Younu
Age : 22 years, occ : Household
R/o # 7-771/A2, Ibrahim Manzil
Mijgori Gund Road, Kalaburagi
- Mohammed Rizwanul Haq Rayees, S/o Abdul Faheem,
Age : 17 years, Occ : Student
R/o # 7-771/A2, Ibrahim Manzil
Mijgori Gund Road, Kalaburagi
- Bushra Fatima, D/o Abdul Faheem
Age: 16 years, occ : Student
R/o # 7-771/A2, Ibrahim Manzil
Mijgori Gund Road, Kalaburagi
- Mohammed Fawzanulhaq Rayes,
S/o Abdul Faheem
Age : 15 years, Occ : Student
9 4 to 6 U/g of complainant No. 1 she is
Natural mother of the 4 to 6
who are minors ) …. Appellants/complainants
And
- The Manager, Air India,
113, Airlines House,
Gurudwara Rakabgunj road,
Pandit Pant Marg Area,
New Delhi – 100 001.
- Alazam tours and Travels.
Rep. by its agency of Air India
No. 35, Ground floor, “ Tunis City complex”.
J N Road, Mozamjahi Market,
Hyderabad – 500 001 .. Respondents/Opp. parties
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri G. V. S. Prasada Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. V. Umadevi for R-1
M/s. Mohd. Anwar Siddique for R-2.
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Monday, the Nineteenth Day March
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 05.06.2017 passed in CC SR No. 558 of 2017 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM -1, Hyderabad.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the she purchased six Air Tickets for a sum of Rs.80,136/- from opposite parties to travel through Air India along with her family members from Hyderabad to Dubai on 22.11.2014. But, they were not allowed to travel on the said date on the ground that she and her family have not complied with the visa rules allotted to them to stay outside the UAE for six months. The second opposite party despite intimation did not sort out the problem timely which amounts to deficiency in service. In those circumstances, they had to purchase , once again, six tickets incurring an additional amount of Rs.70,218/- to travel through Etihad Airways on the same day. When the opposite parties refused to refund the amount, she got issued legal notice on 07.05.2015, which was, though, served on the opposite party, but, they failed to refund the amount nor replied to the legal notice, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay the Air India tickets charges of Rs.80,136/- and Etihad Airways ticket charges of of Rs.70,218/-, to pay compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh to each complaints towards loss and damages, Rs.25,000/- to each of the complainants towards mental agony and hardship along with interest @ 18% pa from 22.11.2014.
4). The District Forum retuned the said complaint, at the admission stage itself, on the ground that the complaint has to be filed within two years from the date of cause of action, but, in the instant case, the cause of action for the complainants is on the date on which they have purchased the tickets from the opposite parties and on the date when they were not allowed to travel and that the date on which the legal notice was issued and when it was not replied by the opposite parties does not constitute any cause of action.
5) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant s preferred this appeal before this Commission.
6). Both parties have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard
7) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
8). Counsel for the appellants/complainants argued that the District Forum has taken the date of the tickets only into consideration and erred in considering the fact that the limitation is continuous and subsists as the appellants/ complainants have not cancelled the tickets nor did the Respondents/opposite parties refunded the money.
9). On the other hand, Counsel for the 1st respondent/1st opposite party argued that the Check-in staff at Hyderabad Airport observed that the appellants/complainants had over stayed beyond 180 days adhering to the IATA Visa regulations refused to board the Flight after explaining them to any violation of VISA Regulations tantamount to legal penalty on the Airline and blacklisting of the airline for transporting of passengers with improper documents and hence non-acceptance of the appellants/complainants cannot be termed as ‘ gross negligence’ and the complaint is barred by limitation. He further argued that as the tickets were not purchased from them directly they are not liable to refund the same.
10). Counsel for the second respondent/second opposite party agent argued that issuance of legal notice does not constitute continues cause of action and hence the complaint is barred by limitation and further they have issued flight tickets from the fist respondent’s agency in time and they have performed their part of duty and after purchase of air tickets, they are in no way concerned with the boarding of the passengers/complainants and hence the question of refunding of air ticket amount does not arise.
11) We have perused the material available on record. There is no dispute that the appellants/complainants purchased six Air Tickets for a sum of Rs.80,136/- from respondents/opposite parties to travel through Air India along with her family members from Hyderabad to Dubai on 22.11.2014. There is also no dispute that they were refused to board the flight in question on VISA grounds. The contention of the appellants/complainants is that though they refused from boarding the flight, the amount of the ticket fares was not refunded even after issuance of legal notice on 07.05.2015 to that effect. Both the respondents/opposite parties are contending that they are not liable for the same on one pretext or the other. Undisputedly, the amount of ticket charges were not refunded to the appellants/complainants. Admittedly, when the appellants/ complainants were refused from boarding the flight on one pretext or the other, it is their bounden duty to refund the amount of ticket charges. Both the respondents/opposite parties were throwing the blame on each other in refunding the amount of tickets fares. Since the amount of ticket fares were not refunded even after issuance of legal notice and filing of the complaint which constitute continuous cause of action and hence the complaint is not barred by time. The District Forum concentrated only on the date of legal notice in determining the aspect of limitation of two years.
12). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order and consequently the complaint is to be allowed to the extent of the complaint to be numbered only.
13). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 05.06.2017 in CC SR 558 of 2017 passed by the District Forum -1, Hyderabad and consequently the complaint is allowed to be numbered. There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 19.03.2018.
