Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/13/337

Midhun S Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Akbar online Booking co ltd - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

       SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                  : PRESIDENT

                           SMT.PREETHA .G.NAIR             : MEMBER

SRI.VIJU.V.R                           : MEMBER

CC.NO.337/2013 (Filed on : 05.08.2013)

ORDER DATED : 28/02/2022

COMPLAINANTS

1. Midhun S kumar,

S/o. C.S.Sureshkumar,

VNRA 81, Vishnu Nagar,

•  
•  

 

2. Dhivya, W/o.Midhun.S.Kumar,

VNRA 81, Vishnu Nagar,

•  
•  

 

3. Goudham, S/o.Midhun.S.Kumar,

Minor aged 5 years, Rep.by his father,

VNRA 81, Vishnu Nagar,

•  
•  

 

4. Gayathri, D/o.Midhun S Kumar

Minor aged 3 years

VNRA 81, Vishnu Nagar,

•  
•  

(By Kulathoor Rahul L.R & Vellarada Rethin.R)

                                                         VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

          Akbar Online Booking Co.Pvt Ltd, Trivandrum,

          Rep.by its Managing Director,

Our Towers, Vellayambalam,

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

(By Adv.A.Abdul Karim & Adv.R.Ranjit)

ORDER

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR  : MEMBER

First petitioner is a reputed NRI and he is working in Musact for the last several years with his wife, second petitioner and his two minor children i,e 3^rd and 4^th petitioners. First petitioner is conducting a construction company in Musact. So many employees are working under the first petitioner’s company and the day to day works are handled and control by the first petitioner.

2.       On 08.05.2012 the father of the first petitioner named C.S.Suresh kumar, booked four travelling air tickets from the office of the opposite party for the complainants from Muscat to Thiruvananthhpauram vide confirmation ticket no.27403257 dated 08/05/12. Due to the emergency situation the father of the first petitioner, paid a sum of Rs.61520/- (Rupees sixty one thousand five hundred and twenty only) which is higher than the normal rate. On the same day at about 10.43 a.m, the opposite party sends the travel confirmation air tickets to the e-mail of the first petitioner and before the travelling the first petitioner has downloaded the ticket which was send by the opposite party. Interesting fact is that the opposite party send the same air travel ticket at four times in that particular day to the e-mail of the first petitioner. As per the confirmation ticket no.27403257 dated 08.05.2012 issued through the e-mail of the first petitioner by the opposite party, the travel segment was “Flight G9 0118 on 08.05.2012 depart from Muscat at 07.45 pm and arrive in Sharjah at 08.40 p m and flight G9 0441 on 09.05.2012 depart from Sharjah at 02.05 am and arrive in Thiruvannathapuram at 07.35 am”. As per the aforesaid segment, the petitioners are travelled in Flight No.G9 0118 and reached in Sharjah airport as per the air travel ticket issued by the opposite party. After that the petitioners went to the counter for getting the boarding pass in Flight No. G9-0441 as per the travel ticket issued by the opposite party. But the Air Arabia authorities intimated that there was no travelling ticket has been booked in the name of the petitioners on that particular flight no.G9 0441. The complainant stated that, the shocking fact is that which the Air Arabia authorities intimated to the petitioners that the travel air ticket of the petitioners are booked as per the confirmation ticket no.27403257 dated 08.05.2012 issued from the office of the opposite party was in flight no.G9 0449 on 09.05.2012 at 12.40 pm. The time differences between the two ticket is almost 10 hrs. Moreover the tickets send by the opposite party to the e-mail of the first petitioner was a fake one and in that the travel segment the second part was altered or re-edited by the office of the opposite party. So the Air Arabia officials did not given any adequate facilities to the petitioners but they give a copy of the genuine travel ticket. As per that ticket it is clear that the opposite party re-edited the original ticket and that re-edited ticket was sent to the e-mail of the first petitioner for four times in that particular day. Due to the unscrupulous act and unfair trade practice of the opposite party, the petitioners suffered unbearable inconvenience and mental torture and further they were degraded in front of other passengers also. The third and 4^th petitioners are minor children aged about five years and three years respectively. Both of them are very much tired physically and mentally and hence the petitioners availed a double room in Transit Hotel at Sharjah Airport on 09.05.2012 at about 02.15 am as per voucher no.SH/13009/2012 in the name of the first petitioner for a huge amount. Due to this act of the opposite party, the petitioners could not attend an important family function at Tharavad, which was the main purpose for this intended trip. They further highlighted the fact that due to the opposite party’s utter negligence the relationship among their close relatives have adversely affected. It is further submitted that after the long process the petitioners reached the Trivandrum airport at about 06.10 pm on 09.05.2012, almost 11hours delay as per the ticket issued from the opposite party. After that the petitioners send registered legal notice to the opposite party stating the above facts due to the negligence act of the opposite party. The opposite party send reply notice to the counsel for the petitioners, stated that all the allegations contained in the notice of the petitioners were denied. Moreover the opposite party made an unbelievable story about the illegal and unscrupulous act of the opposite party. Hence this complaint is necessitated.   

3.       Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party and that complainants had not directly availed / hired any service of this opposite party. The tickets were booked by Mr. S.Suresh kumar, father of the first complainant. Further stated that Mr.Suresh kumar approached opposite party at 11.aṃ.on 08.05.2012 for booking tickets for the complainants. He was in such a hurry that he was confused as to the age of the second child Gayathri ( 4^th complainant) and informed the opposite party that she is an infant and so opposite party initially calculated the total fee as Rs.46,800/- ie for two adults, 1 child and 1 infant. Accordingly the tickets were booked in Air Arabia travel portal to travel in flight no.G 90119 and flight no.G90441 on 09.05.2012 which arrives at Trivandrum at 7.35 a.m. The receipt for the same was also issued to him. But later, Mr.Suresh kumar informed opposite party that Gayathri is not an infant in terms of Airlines and so initial booking made by opposite party including an infant based on earlier representation had to be cancelled and the charges were recalculated at Rs.59,250/- which was the only amount paid by the Suresh kumar and received by opposite party. The receipt of the same was also issued to him. Due to the extreme urgency coupled with aforesaid confusion created by Mr.Suresh kumar the opposite party staff, without entering in their own portal, straight away gave booking on the site of Air Arabia in good faith and for want of time, they got booking only in flight no.G9 449. Due to the extreme hurry shown by Mr.Suresh kumar the opposite party’s staff failed to delete the earlier booking in G9 441 from the system, which remained and automatically transmitted through the e-mail. But Mr.Suresh kumar had the actual details and printout with correct flight number and timing. It seemed that he failed to communicate the same to the complainant. Nevertheless, one hour before check in time ie at 15.45 Oman time, the airline site history was seen as viewed by the passenger of somebody on their behalf, but they have chosen to fly to Sharjah where they have struck for some hours, to catch the flight G9-0449, at 12.40 p.m on 09.05.2012. The passengers however travelled in the flight and reached at Thiruvananthapuram on 06.10 p.m on 09.05.2012. The last opportunity to avoid the inconvenience at the Sharjah Airport in having waited for about additional 10 hours was with the passengers. However if the passengers informed the matter to the opposite party from Muscat or Sharjah the opposite party could have informed there Principal viz, Air Arbia so as to enable them to make necessary remedial measures. The complainants do not have any cause of action and the prayers sought for in the complaint are unsustainable and not allowable in law. The opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainants. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4.    Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents. Exts.P1 to P8 marked. Complainant examined as PW1 and cross examined by opposite party. Thereafter opposite party filed chief affidavit and documents. Exts.D1 to D3 marked DW1 cross examined by complainant. Both parties filed argument notes.

Issues to be considered are :

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. If so what is the relief and cost.

Issue I

5.       The tickets for the complainants to travel was booked at Thiruvananthapuram by the father of first complainant. In the deposition of PW1 it is admitted that the ticket was booked by his father. Also the first complainant was the first person named in Ext.P1, more over opposite party was admitted the fact of booking tickets. The complainants are the beneficiaries because they have used Ext. P1 ticket for their travel. So the complainants are consumers under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence complaint is maintainable.

Issues  II & III

6.       On perusal of Ext.P1 dtd 08.05.2012 the complainants are departing from muscat at 7.45 pm in flight no.G 90118 and arrive in Sharjah at 08.40 pm. In the second travel in Exts.P1 and Ext.P2 it is very clear that Ext.P1 is entirely different from Ext.P2. The second travel starts at 09.05.2012, the flight G9 0441 departs from Sharjah at 2.05 AM and arrived at TVM Airport at 7.35 AM. After the arrival at Sharjah they had spend five hours and twenty five minutes for the next connection flight is to be take off.

7.       In Ext.P2 it can be seen that the complainants reached at Sharjah at 08.40 PM and thereafter they spend 16 hours for the next connection flight no.G 90449. From Ext.P3, the Tourist Hotel voucher in the name of the complainant it can be seen that the complainant has booked double room on 09.05.2012 at 2.15 am to 2.15 am on 10.05.2012. Ext.P4 is the original marriage invitation card of the brother of first complainant dated 13.05.2012. The opposite party contended that the father of first complainant booked the ticket from the office of opposite party and availed four tickets and he confused the age and date of birth of complainant no.4. But in Ext.P1 it is very clear that the ticket was booked on 08.05.2012 at 10.43 p.m.The opposite party admitted that the earlier booking in flight G9 0441 could not be deleted from the portal due to extreme hurry shown by the father of the first complainant and automated e-mail was sent to the complainant. The opposite party has not produced evidence to disprove the case of complainant. In the above discussions we find that the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

          In the result, the complaint allowed. We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings, failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

               A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

               Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 28^th February 2022.

 

 

                                                                                 Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                          PREETHA G NAIR: MEMBER

 

                                                                                        Sd/-

                                          VIJU.V.R    : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.337/2013

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - Midhun s kumar

List of Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                   - Copy of reservation confirmation

Ext.P2                   - Copy of reservation confirmation ticket

Ext.P3                   - Copy of hotel voucher

Ext.P4                   - Copy of marriage invitation card

Ext.P5                   - Copy of advocate letter

Ext.P6                   - Copy of postal receipt

Ext.P7                   - Copy of acknowledgement card

Ext.P8                   - Copy of advocate notice dated 01.06.2012

List of witness for the opposite party

DW1                     - Lal.P.K
Exhibits for the opposite party

Ext.D1                  - Copy of receipt from Akbar Travels online

Ext.D2                  - Copy of receipt from Akbar Travels online

 Ext.D3                 - Copy of system note

 

 

Sd/-

                                                                              PRESIDENT