KERALA TRAVELS vs ER.S.MOHAMAD KASIM

WE are of the view that the appeal has to be accepted. Alleging unfair trade practice against the Travel Company, the complainant has filed this complaint.

THE complainant''s case is that he arranged for air tickets from Trivandrum to Kuwait to Paris and back to Kuwait to Trivandrum with the opposite parties and paid a sum of Rs. 1,25,100 towards cost of the ticket. But, later, he came to know that the actual fare is only far less and that the opposite parties have collected an excess fare from him and thus there is deficiency in service. The lower Forum accepted the complainant''s case and directed the 1st opposite party to refund the excess amount collected.

The complainant roped the Kuwait Airlines as the 4th opposite party and the complaint is dismissed as against the 2 to 4 opposite parties.

THE complainant''s emphatic case is that he gave a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,25,100 in the name of Mr. C. Arumugam. It is not his case that he gave the cheque in the name of Kerala Travels or the name of either the owner or the partner of the Kerala Travels. THE passbook shows clearly that the cheque was issued in the name of Arumugam and was encashed by him on 21.4.2001. It is not the complainant''s case that Arumugam was the Manager of Kerala Travels. Nor it is proved that he was authorised to accept the cheque for and on behalf of the Kerala Travels. THEre is nothing to show that the payment made by way of cheque was made by the complainant towards the payment of fare. If really it was payment of fare, there was no reason why the cheque could not be issued in the name of the Firm or for the invoice amount of Rs. 1,39,836. Moreover, it is to be pointed out that the complainant did not issue a crossed cheque but it was a bearer cheque. THE reason given by the complainant for issuing the cheque in favour of Arumugam is stated in paragraph 2 of the complaint where he has stated that the Manager requested the 1st complainant to issue the cheque in favour of Arumugam as they needed the cash in the next day. If really it was so, a cheque can be encashed even it is issued in the name of the Manager or in the name of the Firm on the next day. Why should a person, who is neither the Manager nor holding any responsible position, be chosen? In his notice, the complainant has not stated that he was asked to issue the cheque in the name of Arumugam. More over, from the records produced we find that an invoice has been issued on 21.4.2001 showing the cost of two tickets is Rs. 1,39,836. If the complainant had issued the cheque for Rs. 1,39,836, one can understand some logic behind the same. How is it he chose to issue a cheque for Rs. 1,25,000 and on what basis the said amount was arrived at, the complainant is unable to explain, nor has explained. Therefore, from the above facts, it is clear that the order of the lower Forum as against the 1st opposite party cannot at all be maintained. There is nothing to show that the complainant paid Rs. 1,25,000 to the 1st opposite party or he received the same. On the other hand, the receipt produced by the opposite parties shows only a sum of Rs. 81,790 was received from the complainant by them. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed by the lower Forum deserves to be set aside.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the lower Forum is set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed as against the 1st opposite party, but in the circumstances without costs. Appeal allowed