KERALA STATE CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO. 965/2015

ORDER   DATED. 12-12-2017

PRESENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESA CHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

SRI.V.V.JOSE : MEMBER

APPELLANT :

          The Manager,  Travisa Tours and travels,

          Pallath building, Kurisupally road, Cochin. 682015.

          (By   Adv.  Abdul vahab. M & Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh)                                                                

          V/S                                                  

RESPONDENT:

          Advocate Mrs. Jessy George,

          Thayyil Olive Vilas, Palace Nagar Road,

          Thekkumbhagam, Thripunithura.

          (By Adv. Prasanth  V.K)

‘

   (2)

ORDER

HON’BLEJUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESA CHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

                 Opposite party in CC.383/13 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, for short the District Forum, has filed this appeal challenging the order of the Forum directing it  to refund Rs.16,000/- with 12% interest   till realization with cost of Rs.10,000/-

2.      Complainant booked  E air tickets  through  the opposite party, a travel agency, for her journey from Cochin to Chicago via Abu Dhabi and for return from Chicago to Cochin.  She paid an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards the ticket charges.  Purpose of her journey was to attend the marriage ceremony of her nephew fixed on 14 and 15.04.12.  She was served with a confirmed air ticket for to and fro journey by the travel agency.  However, later,  she was informed that her ticket was cancelled with  request    to collect the refund from the Kochi office of the opposite party.  Opposite party later arranged air ticket for her

                                                                   (3)

journey to Chicago on a different date on her payment of excess amount of Rs.16,000/- .  Due to the change of date for the journey, she could not attend and participate in the ceremonies connected with the marriage, was her case.  She, therefore, claimed refund of the excess amount of Rs.16,000/- with compensation of Rs.70,000/- from the opposite party alleging deficiency of service.                                                                

3.      Opposite party filed  a  version resisting the claim contending that he was not an IATA agent and the deficiency of service imputed against him is baseless.

4.      Evidence consisted of testimony  of complainant  as pw1  and exhibits A-1 to A-10.  No evidence was let in by the opposite party.  Forum below, appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing counsels on both sides, upheld the case of the complainant and directed the opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs.16,000/- collected from her with cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Challenge is against that Order.

                                                                   (4)

5.      We heard counsel on both sides and  perused the records.  Before filing the complaint, it is seen,    the complainant had issued an advocate notice alleging deficiency of service by the opposite party   seeking refund of the excess amount paid with compensation.  A-7 is the copy of the advocate notice.  Opposite party gave a reply (Ex.A-8) in which it was contended that since another passenger had booked through the sales promoter, her confirmed okay ticket was cancelled.  If that was the reply given to the advocate notice, it is seen in the letter given for refunding the excess amount of Rs.16,000/-, the opposite party had   stated that cancellation of confirmed ticket was due to   rivalry in travel agency business.  Statement made in Ex.A-4 by the opposite party indicates that the cancelation of the ticket was on account of the rift between IATA agent and his sub agent.  For any rift between IATA agent and sub agent, a confirmed ticket holder who had booked  through the travel agency should not  suffer los and damages. Opposite party had issued her a confirmed ticket and later it was cancelled.   Excess sum

                                                                   (5)

was  also collected from her.   Evidently  it was on account of  rift between the agents engaged in the business of opposite party.  That being so, it is a clear case where deficiency of service is proved against the opposite party.  The finding arrived at by the lower Forum to award refund of the excess sum collected from her with cost of Rs.10,000/- in the proved facts and circumstances of the case is fully justified.  There is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- payable by the opposite party.        

JUSTICE  S.S. SATHEESA CHANDRAN:PRESIDENT

V.V.JOSE                : MEMBER

Sh/-