J.K.Mittal vs Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.

LEARNED Senior Counsel Mr. M. N. Krishnamani appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that as this complaint is not maintainable, the interim order which was passed yesterday be modified. He submits that complaint is not maintainable, because, even if the complainant No. 1 might have suffered any loss, for that loss the pecuniary jurisdiction would be with the District Forum and the claim of Rs. 5 crore is totally exaggerated.

THIS contention would be required to be dealt with at the time of final hearing because in case of unfair trade practice and punitive damages, it cannot be prima facie said that the claim is exaggerated. He further submits that Complaint no. 2 which is an NGO Consumer Voice - ought not to have joined as array of parties at the request of Complainant no. 1 and in case the complaint is not maintainable unless all members of the Complainant no. 2 are affected by such unfair trade practice.

This contention appears to be without any substance, because, Consumer Organizations are required to take such cause for preventing unfair trade practices and under the Consumer Protection Act they are entitled to file such complaint.

HE further submits that even the ticket which is being issued to the complainant mentions that it was operated by Air Deccan. That contention, prima facie is without any substance, because, the ticket specifically states that flight is Kingfisher Airlines IT 4608. The learned Counsel submits that such arrangement is only till the final merger of Air Deccan with Kingfisher Airlines takes place.

CONSIDERING the aforesaid submissions, in our view the order passed by this Commission yesterday does not call for any review or modification.