AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE present appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 13.5.2004 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ''the State Commission'') in complaint case No. 71/SC/1997. By its impugned order, the State Commission held the appellant (original opposite party Nos. 2-4) guilty of deficiency in the performance of service of providing air travel to the officers of the respondent company (complainant, and some others) and directed the refund of Rs. 6,63,060 towards the cost of 117 valid tickets purchased by the complainant for air journey of its officers on the Delhi-Allahabad-Muirpur-Lucknow-Delhi Sector, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount with the appellant Airways till the date of its refund.
THE facts relating to the complaint were that the appellant Airways decided to introduce a flight on the Delhi-Allahabad-Muirpur-Lucknow-Delhi Sector from 29.2.1996. In accordance with the agreed arrangement, the respondent company purchased 315 tickets in advance for travel on the Muirpur-Delhi-Muirpur Sector during March - April 1996 of which, 150 tickets for travel in March 1996 and the rest for travel in April 1996. The validity period for use of these tickets was extended upto June 1996 by the appellant Airways on a subsequent understanding between the parties. The respondent/complainant company, however, utilised 139 tickets upto May 1996. It is on record that the appellant Airways could not continue the service after 6.5.1996. The respondent company wrote to the appellant Airways under its letter dated 23.5.1996 seeking refund of the cost of the balance tickets, as it apprehended that the air service had been discontinued indefinitely. In a subsequent meeting between the officers of the appellant Airways and the respondent company at Muirpur, it was decided to allow the utilisation of the unused air tickets within the next three months. This assurance was confirmed in writing by the appellant Airways under its letter dated 4.7.1996. It appears that the service was, however, not resumed in July 1996, which led the respondent company to reiterate its demand for refund of the cost of unused air tickets by its letter dated 26.7.1996. After some further correspondence in the subsequent period, the appellant Airways wrote to the respondent company under its letter dated 9.9.1996 committing to restart the air service thrice a week from Delhi to Muirpur w.e.f. 19.9.1996 and allow the utilisation of the unused air tickets purchased in the past upto 18.10.1996. However, the respondent company conveyed its inability to accept the arrangement proposed by the appellant Airways under its letter dated 14.9.1996. In response, the appellant Airways wrote a letter dated 19.9.1996, which is reproduced below: "To Mr. K. K. Rathi Hindalco Ind. Ltd. P.O. Renukoot, District Sonbhadra-231217 Fax No. 05446-52107 Sub.: Flight operations of UP Airways Ltd. Delhi-Muirpur sector Dear Sir, This refers to our previous correspondence regarding the captioned subject. We acknowledge the receipt of your letter and accordingly submit that flight schedule and fare chart will be sent across to you very shortly. Meanwhile, we frankly submit that the aircraft is under mandatory checks and servicing. Hence, operations to Muirpur are delayed. We anticipate that we shall be able to provide our services from 2nd week of Oct. 96 only and send intimation in one week advance to you to this effect. Revalidation of tickets will be extended and in case this option is not acceptable to you then please send us the ticket stock with serial No. held by you. U.P. Airways will refund the amount due in that case without hesitation. Kindly feel free to be in touch with us and intimate us your decision. Thanking you, For UP Airways Ltd., Sd/- (R. K. Sethi) Manager-Marketing "
The respondent company observed under its letter of 26.7.1996 to the appellant Airways that the air service had not commenced w.e.f. 19.9.1996 and, therefore, reiterated the demand for refund of the cost of unused tickets with interest. While the appellant Airways kept on assuring resumption of air service and revalidation of unused tickets, it appears that neither the air service was resumed nor was the cost of unused air tickets refunded to the respondent company. When the dispute remained unresolved till about July 1997, the respondent company filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission, with the result mentioned above.
WE have heard Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant Airways and Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain, Advocate on behalf of the respondent company and gone through the entire record produced by the parties.
THE arguments of Mr. Kaushik, learned Counsel for the appellant Airways before us are the same as were advanced before the State Commission. In brief, his case is that the subject matter of the dispute does not constitute a consumer complaint because it is in respect of breach of an alleged agreement between the parties and such a breach of contract/ agreement/arrangement simplicitor cannot be dealt with under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He, however, does not insist on the argument of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission, probably in view of the fact that the appellant Airways admittedly had a functional representative office at Muirpur and most of the cause of action, viz., operation of the air service from and to Muirpur admittedly arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission.
WE are unable to agree with the first-mentioned assertion of Mr. Kaushik for the simple reason that the arrangement of operation of air service was clearly a contract for providing air service for specific consideration and subject to certain terms and conditions. This service would fall squarely within the definition of "service" under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Secondly, on merits, while it may be that enough traffic was not generated by the group of companies operating in that area for the appellant Airways to run the air service continuously on commercially viable basis, the admitted position is that the discontinuation of the air service in question and the appellant''s failure to resume it despite repeated assurances to that effect was mainly because (a) it could not operate the air service for want of permission of the Airport Authority of India and (b) the operating aircraft of the appellant Airways was too large for the traffic volume. These facts are borne out by the letters dated 7.6.1996 and 11.7.1997 of the appellant Airways. Moreover, by its letter dated 19.9.1996 (supra), the appellant Airways explicitly agreed to refund the amount due "without hesitation".
IN view of this admitted position and the fact that the appellant Airways could not actually resume the air service for reasons not attributable to the respondent company, i.e., maintenance inspection of its aircraft and its inability to obtain permission from the Airport Authority of India to operate this service, it cannot escape the responsibility of refunding the amount representing the price of the unused air tickets purchased by the respondent company. The State Commission has ordered nothing beyond that and at 6% per annum, the rate of interest awarded is also entirely reasonable.
IN conclusion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant U.P. Airways is directed to comply with the order of the State Commission within four weeks from the date of this order, failing which the amount of refund (Rs. 6,63,060) shall carry interest @ 12 per cent per annum. No orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.