1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 18.10.2013 passed in FA/12/916 by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai whereby the appeal of the Complainant was partly allowed. 2. The brief facts are that the Complainant/Petitioner, Dr. Shailesh V. Shrikhande, who is a Professor in Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, invited Dr. Prof. Marcus W. Buechler and his wife for the Surgical Conference at Mumbai, which was to be held on 25.8.2006. He booked tickets for Dr. Marcus W. Buechler and his wife for travelling to India through Disha Travels (OP 3). The sale officer of Air India/OP 1 vide letter dated 20.7.2006 confirmed issuance of two business class tickets from AI Code Share Flights FRA – BOM – FRA, with gross fare of Rs. 2,24,910/- with tax. OP 1 approved the incentive of € 2023 (INR. 1,19,640/- per person) and accordingly, the special net fare became €1780 i.e. Rs.1,05,270/-. The Petitioner paid the fare accordingly. On 11.8.2006, the OP 1 realized that the tickets were ‘AI Code Share Flights’ whereas the guests will have to travel only by “Lufthansa” Flight. Hence, OP 1 felt that fare quoted and received from the Complainant was inadequate to pay for “Lufthansa” flight, accordingly, demanded extra amount from Petitioner vide letter dated 11.8.2006. It was also informed that if there is any delay on the part of complainant to pay the said balance amount, OP 1 would cancel the tickets. Eventually, the OP 1 cancelled the tickets, therefore, the complainant had to pay the regular fares for Lufthansa flight to bring the guests. 3. Due to the alleged deficiency in service, the Complainant/Petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai ( in short, ‘the District Forum’) on 6.1.2007 and prayed Rs. 5 lakhs as a compensation towards ex-gratia payment and mental agony alongwith cost of Rs.50,000/-. 4. The OPs 1 and 3/Air India and M/s Disha Travels, respectively, resisted the complaint by filing the written version. The OPs have raised the contention, that the complainant was not a consumer and the contract, if any, was between OPs 3 and OP 1. It was submitted that after the tickets were issued by the travel agent, it was on the basis of net fare, which was not applicable on AIR Code Share Flights but it is only applicable on the Air India operated flights. As soon as the mistake was defected by OP 1, immediately, the complainant was advised through OP 3 either to change the booking from Lufthansa to Air India or to pay the difference of amount. However, despite clear communication well in advance, the complainant failed to make a payment. Therefore, OP 1 was constrained to cancel the bookings. 5. Considering the pleadings and the evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed OPs 1 and 2 to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the complainant preferred first appeal before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘the State Commission’). The State Commission partly allowed the complaint and the compensation was increased to Rs. 50,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed the instant revision petition for enhancement of compensation. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Respondent No. 3 was absent despite service. He was proceeded against ex parte. Learned counsel for the Complainant/Petitioner submitted that the booking was made with consultation of OP 3, the travel agent, who offered the special fare and the same was confirmed by OP 1 with an endorsement. Therefore, OP 1 cannot change its own stand and adopt extortion tactics to demand more money from the petitioner. It was unfair trade practice adopted by OPs 1 and 2. The compensation awarded by the State Commission is meagre amount. It should be huge to create deterrent to the OPs. Arguments on behalf of respondents are that the complainant was not a consumer because the consideration for ticket of Dr. Prof. Marcus W. Buechler was paid by the complainant being his sponsor and the consideration for the second ticket of Mrs. Buechler was admittedly paid by Dr. Prof. Buechler. Therefore, under such circumstances, the complainant was estopped from claiming any compensation towards the ticket of Mrs. Buechler. The net fare/special fare of tickets, which were booked by travel agent (OP 3), was applicable on AI Code Share Flights only and not on Code Share Flights of Lufthansa. There was a mistake committed by their staff while communicating the same. OP 3 misunderstood that there were special fares available on Code Share Flights of Lufthansa. Even the travel agent/OP 3 should also have been aware of the facts but it was a genuine mistake admittedly. 9. After our thoughtful consideration to the arguments of both the parties, in our view, the complainant as well as the OPs are at mistake. Air India/OP 1 had already admitted its mistake with respect to quoting the wrong fares, therefore, making a demand for difference of fare, do not amount to deficiency in service. Non-remittance of difference of amount ultimately resulted into cancellation of tickets. It is true that the abrupt cancellation of tickets at 11th hour definitely had caused embarrassment and mental agony to the complainant and indirectly to the organisers of the conference. 10. Considering all the issues, the State Commission enhanced the compensation from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-, which in our view, was a just and proper compensation in the instant case. 11. We do not find any merit in the instant revision petition. It is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. |
