C.PAUL DAS vs EAST WEST TRAVELS AND TRADE LINKS

THIS complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 17 of the Consumer Protection Act claiming a total compensation of Rs. 1,31,500/-.

SHORTLY stated, me allegations in the complaint are as follows : The complainants were working in Kuwait under the Ministry of Health for the last 30 years and they had to leave Kuwait to India during the period of Iraqi invasion. They wanted to settle their accounts with their employers and to lodge claims against their lost belongings for which they obtained Visas to visit Kuwait which had only one month''s validity. The Visa is only for the stay for one month. The petitioners purchased to and for tickets from the third respondent Niranjan Travels, Nagercoil, Agent of East West Travels, Thiruvananthapuram, by giving Rs. 50,270/- by cash. The second opposite party gave confirmed OK tickets in Air India Flight for to and fro journeys. So they went to Kuwait on 15th November, 1992 and were to return to India on 17th December, 1992, as per the OK tickets issued. On 12th December, 1992, the petitioners presented the tickets for reconfirmation in the Air India Office at Kuwait. But to their surprise the Air India officials told the petitioners that there was no such booking. They also contacted their Thiruvananthapuram office through telex. The messages are marked as Ext. P4. In the messages they enquired how the tickets happened to be issued affixing the OK status when no booking was made for the said passengers. It was also mentioned that Air India was not operating the flight on 17.12.1992. As there were no seats available before the 20th December, 1992, the complainant had to stay back for 4 more days from 16.12.1992 to 20.12.1992. They were fined for overstay in Kuwait at the rate of KD 10/- per head per day. They had also to pay a hotel bills at KD 25/- each for the four days. They were also forced to hire a car at the rate of KD 10/- per day. They had to go to the police station, hotel, the Airport the telephone booth etc. many times a day. According to the petitioners they paid a total sum of KD 40/- (corresponding the Rs. 4,000/-) at the time of return of the car hired on 19th December, 92 evening. They had also to meet telephone charges amounting to Rs. 2,000/- at Kuwait and Rs. 3,000/- in India. It is also alleged that they had to bribe the police by paying 100 Kuwait Dollars. More than that the police also took from the complainants a silver glass worth Rs. 9,500/-. They alleged that all this happened because of the negligence and carelessness of the opposite parties and deficiency committed by them in rendering service to the petitioners. It is on these allegations the complainant sought a direction for payment of compensation of Rs. 1,31,500/- from the opposite party. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a version denying the allegations and contending that the complaint is not maintainable. It was admitted that opposite parties are approved IATA agents of Air India. The complainant placed booking orders for two tickets with the opposite parties for travelling to Kuwait form Trivandrum and back by Air India. Accordingly opposite parties booked seats for the complainants and the tickets were issued to the complainants as Okeyed and confirmed by Air India, Vellayambalam, Trivandrum, and the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service. They also contended that the complaint is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties.

The third opposite party filed a version stating that he was acting only as a Sub-Agent of the 2nd opposite party who handed over the tickets to the complainant and the complainant did not hire any service from the 3rd opposite party and therefore the complaint is not maintainable.

ON receipt of the version filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 the complainant filed a petition to imp lead the Air India as the 4th opposite party and we allowed that petition after issuing notice to Air India. It was averred in that petition that the first opposite party is a recognised IATA Agent and the second opposite party is the Branch Office at Trivandrum and it was the second opposite party who sold the ticket to the complainant for travel from Trivandrum to Kuwait and back. The return journey was on 17.12.1992 and the second opposite party has not taken any steps for booking the seat for the complainant on 17th December and without getting consent from the Air India authority the 2nd opposite party noted OK status in the ticket. The second opposite party was negligent in not getting confirmation from Air India by noting O.K. status in the ticket. The complainants also were satisfied that when they came to Air India office for re-confirmation there was no booking for them to travel to Trivandrum on 17.12.1992. On behalf of the complainants PW 1, the 6. On behalf of the complainants PW 1, the first complainant, was examined and Exts. P 1 to P 8 were marked. The opposite parties have not examined any witnesses and no documents were also marked on their behalf.

THE following points arise for consideration : (i) Whether the complainants are consumers and whether the complaint is maintainable ? (ii) Whether opposite parties committed any deficiency in the matter of issuing OK status tickets to the complainants for journey from Kuwait to Trivandrum 17.12.1992 and if so, what are the reliefs to which the complainants are entitled ? (iii) What is the order as to the cost ?

Point No. 1. The opposite parties 1 to 3 have raised contention that the complainants are not consumers. We are unable to accept this contention. The tickets were purchased by the complainants for consideration. 1st and 2nd opposite parties are also entitled to commission from Air India. In the circumstances there is no substance in the contention that the complainants are not consumers. We reject that contention and hold that the complainants are consumers and that the complaint is maintainable. Point Nos. II & III. PW 1 has spoken in terms of the averments in the complaint. Exts. P 1 and P 2 series are the tickets. The tickets show that they had to travel from Trivandrum on 15.11.1992 and to return from Kuwait to Trivandrum on 17.12.1992 and the status shown in all the tickets for both the journey is OK. The evidence also shows that when the petitioners approached the 4th opposite party for re-confirmation they were told that there was no booking by the opposite parties 1 and 2 for the journey of the complainants on 17.12.1992. As a matter of fact 4th opposite party expressed surprise. It has come out that there was no direct flight to Trivandrum on 17.12.1992 and 4th opposite is not likely to issue an OK status tickets for day on which there was no flight. The officials of Air India at Kuwait Office sent a telex message Ext. P 4 enquiring how tickets were issued without any confirmation from Air India. The evidence of PW 1 on this aspect, has not been controverted. In the circumstances there cannot be any doubt that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are negligent in issuing OK status tickets to the complainants to travel from Kuwait on 17.12.1992 without arranging confirmation of tickets from Air India.

THEN the next question to be considered is whether deficiency can be attributed to opposite parties 3 and 4. Opposite party No. 3 is only a sub-agent of 2nd opposite party and the third opposite party has only collected the money and brought the ticket from the opposite parties 1 and 2 and handed over the tickets to the complainants. The first and second opposite parties have no case that the third opposite party had done anything in fixing OK status for the return journey of the complainants from Kuwait to Trivandrum on 17.12.1992. We also find that the 4th opposite party also cannot be fastened with any liability as the 4th opposite party did not confirm the tickets of the complainants for their journey from Kuwait to Trivandrum on 17.12.1992. In the circumstances both opposite parties 3 and 4 cannot be held liable for any compensation suffered by the complainant.

THE next question to be considered is what is the relief that can be granted to the complainant. On going through the evidence and the complaint we find the claim made is inflated. THE complainants could have legally stayed at Kuwait only upto 15.12.1992 according to the Visa issued because the permission is only for one month after the entry and they entered Kuwait on 15.12.1992. So their over-stay upto 17.12.1992 has nothing to do with the deficiency committed by opposite parties 1 and 2. Because of the negligence of opposite parties 1 and 2 the complainants were obliged to overstay at Kuwait for 3 more days. THE first complainant as PW 1 has deposed that Ext. P6 is the hotel bill issued by Oasis Hotel for the stay of the complainants for the period from 17.12.1992 to 20.12.1992. THE bill relating to one day had to be deducted from this. In the notice also what is claimed is only compensation for stay in the hotel for 3 days whereas the bill pertains to 4 days. For stay at hotel for four days the complainant has claimed Rs. 20,000/- and this by Ex. P6 bill. So we find that the complainants are entitled to Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for their overstay at Kuwait for 3 days. THE next item of compensation claimed is fine. It is seen from Ext. P 6 each complainant had to pay 10/- KD per day for over-stay. So the complainants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 6,000/- on this count. THE complainants has alleged that he had to hire a taxi for 4 days. We find that it would be reasonable to grant a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- towards the rental charges of taxi used by the complainants during the period for going to police station and telephone booth as a result of their stay after 17.12.1992. However no telephone bill relating to the period is produced by the complainants. We will assume that some expenditure is incurred by the complainants on this count and we fix Rs. 1.000/- as compensation. Though the complainants have alleged a silver glass was taken by the police there is no satisfactory evidence to establish this expenditure and therefore we are unable to award any compensation on this count. We have no doubt that the complainant must have suffered mental agony as a result of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. We feel that each of the complainants is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on this count. THE complainants are entitled to get their cost which we fix at Rs. 1,000/- for each of the complainants. In the result, the complainants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 37,000/-. Opposite parties 1 and 2 will pay this amount within a period of two months. Complaint allowed with costs. _____________