Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Hon’ble Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President & Dr. (smt.) Angel Arulraj, Member
S. PANDIAN & ORS.—Complainants
versus
THE SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM & ORS.—Opposite Parties
O.P. Nos. 30 to 38 of 1997—Decided on 21.4.1999
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 2(1)(D)(II), 12 - TICKETS PURCHASED BY COMPANY, NOT COMPLAINANTS - COMPLAINANTS NOT CONSUMERS - NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT - COMPLAINTS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Complainants purchased tickets from travel agents (opposite parties 2 and 3) for a business and pleasure trip to Havana, Cuba, with transit stops in Bangkok and London. The travel agents allegedly assured the complainants that a London transit visa was not required for Indian passport holders. However, upon arrival in Bangkok, the complainants were informed by SAS Airlines that they needed a London transit visa. The complainants were stranded in Bangkok for three days and eventually forced to board an Aeroflot aircraft to Havana against their will. They were later deported from Cuba and returned to India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainants were not consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act because they did not purchase the tickets themselves and there was no privity of contract between them and the opposite parties. The court also held that the complaints were not maintainable because they were not filed by the consumer to whom the services were provided, as required by Section 12 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainants were consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. 2. Whether the complaints were maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of "consumer" in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, which defines a consumer as a person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration. The court held that the complainants were not consumers because they did not purchase the tickets themselves and there was no privity of contract between them and the opposite parties. The court also relied on Section 12 of the Act, which requires complaints to be filed by the consumer to whom the services were provided. The court held that the complaints were not maintainable because they were not filed by the consumer to whom the services were provided.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaints.
Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President—These nine complaints were filed by nine different people against the same opposite parties. The nine complainants had all travelled together on the basis of the tickets issued by the 1st opposite party. The allegations in the complaints are all the same, the contentions in the written version are also similar and the points for consideration are also the same in all the complaints. In these circumstances, all these complaints can be disposed of in one common order.
2. The case of the complainants is that they purchased onward and return journey air tickets from Madras to Havana and back to Madras for business and pleasure trip, from the 1st opposite party through their agents 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. While issuing the tickets, according to the complainants, the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties checked the complainants’ visas, passports and documents relating to other formalities. The opposite parties told them that the transit visas for London were not necessary for 24 hours for Indian passport holders. The complainants left Madras on 10th December, 1996 as per the schedule to Bangkok. At Bangkok, on 12th December, they went to “SAS” ticketing counter to go to Havana through Copenhagen and London. There, the “SAS” Authorities told the complainants that they required London transit visas. But on enquiry they found that no such visas were necessary and that was informed to the SAS Authorities. Even though they accepted it the opposite parties misguided the complainants and forced them to stay at Bangkok for three days causing them huge expenses for lodging and boarding. On 14.12.1996 the SAS Authorities took the complainants to an Aeroflot aircraft. The complainants refused to board that aircraft and requested the opposite parties to return their passports, visas and tickets for returning on 20th December. But with the help of the police the Airport Authorities forcibly pushed the complainants to the aircraft. They were treated as criminals at Bangkok Airport and they were not informed about their destination. The aircraft dropped them at Moscow Airport and handed over the complainants’ documents to the Moscow Police Authorities. Only later they came to know that the aircraft was going to Havana. Only at Havana their travel documents were handed over to the complainants. As per the schedule, while returning, the complainants met the Cuban Airlines Authorities on 20.12.1996. The passengers were kept in illegal confinement in a room for 26 hours and then they transported them to Moscow even against their will in the Aeroflot aircraft. The complainants lost their personal belongings and reputation and image. On 26.12.1996 the Aeroflot Authorities transported the complainants to Delhi. On account of this conduct of the opposite parties and the Aeroflot Authorities the complainants were harassed and suffered physically and mentally. Alleging thus the complaints have been filed for directing the opposite parties to pay the ticket fares being Rs. 72,000/- each for travel from Madras to Havana and’ back to Madras, and Rs. 10 lakhs for physical and mental pain.
3. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed a written version and the 3rd opposite parties has filed a separate written version.
4. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties would contend that there was no privity of contract between them and the complainants. The complainants have not hired or availed of the services of these opposite parties. Therefore, the complainants are not consumers vis-a-vis these opposite parties 1 and 2. Even from the documents filed by the complainants it is seen that one M/s. Oriental Exports had sought for the purchase of tickets in question from the 3rd opposite party and they had only made payments for the tickets. Since admittedly the complainants have not purchased the tickets, they have not hired or availed of the services of the opposite parties. The complainants cannot be deemed to be consumers within the meaning o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
