ARMEX TRAVELS vs C.M. UNNI HASSAN

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Malappuram, in O.P. No. 184/95. The opposite parties are the appellants.

WE heard the Counsel for the appellant and the respondents. The only contention taken by the appellant is that the complainant who is the first respondent in this appeal has no locus standi to file the complaint. Briefly stated the allegations in the complaint are as follows : The complainant is running a travel agency called Arab India Travels at Chandakunnu, Nilambur. According to him it is a small establishment run for earning his livelihood and on 30.6.1994 the complainant booked two flight tickets with the 2nd opposite party and the tickets were purchased on 6.7.1994 paying Rs. 2,012/-each. The tickets were meant for one Sri Mohammed Younus A. and one Shri Hussain P. for journey from Calicut to Bombay on 20.7.1994 by East West Air Lines of the 3rd opposite party. The passengers could not travel on 20.7.1994 as the tickets were cancelled without any notice to them or the complainant. The complainant had to purchase two tickets for journey on 21.7.1994 paying additional amount of Rs. 2,012/-each. It is also stated that the passengers who had to go to Riyadh could not get seat in the economy class and a sum of Rs. 2,715/-more per head had to be spent for availing J Class accommodation which alone was available for journey on 22.7.1994. It is also alleged that the complainant had to hire a taxi spending Rs. 800/-for going to Calicut on 20.7.1994. It is in those circumstances the complainant sought a direction for payment of Rs. 10,254/-together with another sum of Rs. 10,000/-as compensation by the opposite parties.

The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version stating that the status of the tickets issued by them were Okay and there is no deficiency on their part. The 3rd opposite party filed a version denying liability. In para 7 of the complaint the complainant has stated that the 3rd opposite party was impleaded only as a formal party. But in the prayer portion of the complaint the relief is not confined against the opposite parties 1 and 2 alone. The District Forum found that there is deficiency and in that view passed an order directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 10,454/-to the complainant within a period of two months. It is also stated that if the payment is not made within the stipulated period, the amount awarded will carry interest @ 12%.

FEELING aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred by the first and second opposite parties. Learned Counsel submitted that specific contention was taken in the version filed by them that the complainant is not a consumer. But that contention was not considered by the District Forum. He also stated that the District Forum has not even adverted to this contention in the order though from the statement of fact mentioned in the body of the order itself it is clear such contention taken. He argued that the complaint is not maintainable.

HOWEVER learned Counsel appearing for the complainant/first respondent submitted that in view of the amendment brought by Act 50/93 adding the words "avails of" in Section 2(d)(2), the complainant who availed the service has to be treated as a consumer. But we find the consideration has emanated from the passengers though actually it was paid by the complainant. In a situation like this, the question to be considered is whether the payment of consideration on behalf of the passengers by complainant would constitute him as a consumer on the basis he availed of the service for consideration. In our view the complainant is only an agent of the real consumer and has no locus standi to file a complaint on the basis that he is a consumer. The fact that actually it was he who approached the opposite parties 1 and 2 and obtained the tickets will not make transaction as one availed of for consideration by him. So construed it has to be held that the complainant in this case is not a consumer. It may be pointed out even if the service alleged to have been availed of by the complainant is considered service that is confined to the service obtained from the opposite parties 1 and 2 of booking the ticket and nothing more whereas the deficiency alleged in this case is the deficiency in not giving accommodation, in spite of the OK status of the tickets. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. This will not preclude the passengers from taking any action for the alleged deficiency of service and consequent sufferings and difficulties faced by them. The appeal is disposed of as above. Appeal allowed.