By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case of complainant in C.C.131/06 is that the complainant approached the 2nd respondent to arrange ticket for going to and fro to Dubai. The complainant wanted to get OK ticket for the return journey. The 2nd respondent agreed the same and issued ticket. The complainant paid Rs.15,900/-. In the ticket issued there was printed as OK. The complainant travelled to Dubai along with his two colleagues. When the return ticket was verified in Dubai it was seen that it is not confirmed. The complainant has gone to Dubai on transit visa and he can stay there only for 14 days. The act of respondents caused much difficulty to complainant. On payment of 560 Dirham return ticket was taken and travelled to Kochi. There is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence the complaint.
2. The version of 1st respondent is that this respondent is an unnecessary party in the complaint. This respondent never seen the complainant and there was no transaction between the complainant and this respondent. The 4th respondent has the duty to confirm the ticket. This respondent is unaware about the confirmation of the ticket. On enquiry of this respondent it is realized that the ticket was not confirmed by reporting to 4th respondent. The complainant wanted to postpone the journey to some other day and he tried for the same and so the difficulties were caused. The 4th respondent has right to upgrade or cancel the tickets. The ticket was issued by 2nd respondent on acceptance of amount and this respondent is not responsible for the same. There was no deficiency in service from this respondent. Hence dismiss.
3. The counter averments of 4th respondent are that the fact that the complainant purchased a ticket of Oman Air from travel agent is not disputed. The complainant had not purchased the ticket directly from Oman Air. It was the travel agent who gave the air ticket for the return journey of the complainant as if it was confirmed despite the status shown in the computer reservation system is otherwise. This respondent is in no way responsible for issuing a ticket by the travel agent wrongly showing return journey of the complainant as confirmed. So this respondent is not responsible for any of the alleged consequences resulted from issuing the ticket by the travel agent. Hence dismiss.
4. The other respondents remained exparte.
5. The case of complainant in C.C.328/06 and C.C.329/06 are the same and counter averments are also the same. In these cases also the 2nd and 3rd respondents are remained exparte.
6. The common points for consideration are that:
(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service from respondents?
(2) If so reliefs and costs.
7. The evidence in C.C.131/06 consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4. The evidence in C.C.32/06 consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4 series and in C.C.329/06 the evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4.
8. Points: The complaints are filed against the respondents by stating that confirmed ticket was issued in spite of not confirmed. It is the case that the 2nd respondent on acceptance of Rs.15,900/- each from the complainants issued air tickets and the ticket issued for the return journey was sealed as OK. But actually the tickets were not OK or confirmed tickets. So the complainants would say that they have suffered much because of the alleged act of the respondents.
9. The 1st respondent filed their version by stating that they are unnecessary party and not at all responsible for the alleged act of 2nd respondent. The 4th respondent contended that the complainants had not purchased the tickets directly from Oman Air and it was the travel agent who was given air ticket for return journey as if it was confirmed. So they are not at all responsible for the act of the 2nd respondent.
10. In all the complaints the complainants are examined and documents were marked in support of their claim. In CC.131/06 by mistake permitted the 2nd respondent to cross examine PW1 even if he remained exparte. Since the 2nd respondent is exparte the cross examination conducted for and on behalf of 2nd respondent is discarded. The 2nd respondent was directed to deposit Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as costs in the Legal Benefit Fund and they deposited the same. But in this circumstance we direct to get return the said amount.
11. It is the version of PW1 in CC.131/06 is that the ticket was purchased from 2nd respondent and there was no transaction between the 1st respondent and PW1. But 1st respondent is impleaded only because its name is mentioned in the ticket. It is his case in the box also that the ticket was issued by stating confirmed ticket. The ticket was made OK by 2nd respondent. During examination also the 4th respondent was on the stand that since the ticket by sealing OK was issued by respondents-1 and 2 they are responsible for compensating the complainant.
12. The complainant produced Ext. P1 to P4 documents and in which Ext. P4 is the return air ticket. It can be seen that the status is OK. The complainant upon the belief of OK status flied to Dubai. It is the case that when reached in Dubai the status of return ticket was verified and it was known that the ticket was not confirmed. It is a serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of 2nd respondent only. Misrepresenting as confirmed ticket and sealing OK status is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the concerned person and is liable to compensate and also liable to return the amount received.
13. In CC.328/06 the complainant is examined as PW1 and deposed that there was no consumer relationship between her and 1st respondent.
During cross examination for 4th respondent nothing was asked about the liability of 4th respondent. The documents produced and marked as Exts. P1 to P4 series and Ext. P1 is the disputed ticket. In this ticket also the status is sealed as OK.
14. In CC.329/06 the complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4 documents are marked. It is also deposed that there was no consumer relationship with 1st respondent. As stated above there was nothing brought about the liability of 4th respondent. Ext. P2 is the disputed ticket and the status is sealed as OK.
15. The 1st respondent filed argument note and stated that they are unnecessary party and not at all liable to compensate the complainant for the unfair act of the 2nd respondent. The 4th respondent argued the case in support of the rulings reported in 2006(1)CPJ 450. It was held by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the travel agent not authorized to issue confirmed ticket issued it despite the status being shown on computer otherwise. Agent supposed to issue tickets as per Rules and Regulations acted beyond the scope of authority given. So it is held that Air India cannot be liable for such act. In another ruling produced by 4th respondent it can be seen that in II(1996) CPJ 61 (NC) there was no deficiency in service on the part of Air Lines. When the complainant purchased an Indian Air Line ticket from an agent and change in the flights schedule not communicated to the complainant by travel agent plane on already left when the complainant reached. It was held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Indian airlines and the liability will only be that of travel agent. So the 4th respondent would say that they are not at all responsible for compensating the complainants. In these circumstances the 2nd respondent is only liable to compensate the complainants. The complainants have a case that 560 Dirhams each was given for purchasing return tickets. The documents produced would show the same.
16. In the result all the complaints are allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to return half amount of Rs.15,900/- each to all the complainants along with compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) each and costs Rs.750/- (Rupees seven hundred and fifty) each within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Otherwise the half ticket charge will carry interest at the rate of 12% from today till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 11th day of July 2012.
