Prof. Sunil Kanti Kar, Member Both the appeals have been preferred by the respective parties against the order dated 1-12-1995 passed by the Calcutta District Forum in C.D.F. Case No. 3149/ 94 awarding refund of Rs. 6.890/- towards the cost of air tickets only to the complainants / respondents.

2. The short points involved in the appeals, if the passengers who are complainants/appellants/respondents in the appeals lose their tickets by theft or otherwise are entitled to refund or to journey on the basis of tickets purchased but incidentally lost? In the event of sale of tickets for the second time allotting same seats for same journey on the same day in the same flight amounts to unfair trade practice?

3. Loss or theft of tickets is not intentional act of the passengers, it is mere an accident. In the instant case the complainants who are senior citizens of India lost their tickets due to theft in the train while they were travelling from Calcutta to Hyderabad for which appropriate steps were taken by making F.I.R. to G.R.P. Vijayawada. They also informed about the loss by theft of the said tickets to all concerned of the appellants. It is also mentioned that when the nation is honouring the senior citizens by way of allowing 50% discount of the basic fare in Indian Airlines. Indian Railway and ITDC hotels all over India in this instant case the O.P.s not only dis-allow them the concession but on the contrary they forced the complainants to purchase fresh air tickets apart from causing damage and dishonour to them.

4. Initially the complainants did not claim refund of the value of tickets which were lost. They wanted only to undertake journey on the same day in same flight from Delhi to Calcutta. The list of passengers for the journey in the particular flight also exhibited their names still they were not allowed to the journey in the flight. It is more strange that when the complainants after purchasing tickets for the second time availed of the same flight on the same day on 1-11-1994 the same seats were allotted to them as those of the tickets purchased first time. It is clear that there were no adverse claimant for those seats in the flight which were allotted originally against purchase of tickets for the first time. The prohibitory clause of refund in the reverse of the air tickets in the event of loss does not alter the' position of the complainants to journey by Modiluft flight on scheduled date and time as their names appeared on the list of passengers meant for journey in that particular flight and they did not ask for refund of money but wanted to journey in that flight only. The contention of the appellants that there is no rule for issuance of duplicate tickets to bonafide passengers whose tickets were lost or stolen but there is no rule presenting the appellants to issue such duplicate tickets. If there are any technical difficulties to issue the duplicate tickets the appellants should have sorted out any arrangement allowing the complainants to make journey after verification in the flight for which the complainants purchased the tickets. So the said action on the part of the appellants is unfair trade practice. There are no other substantial grounds to be dealt with. We do not find any significance to the reference made to Supreme Court Judgments reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 96 because by the order of Forum no contravention of rules and regulations ha~ been caused. Further reference to a Judgment of the State Commission. W.E. in S.C. Case No. 385/A/I993 and other cases by Modiluft are of no use as the full context of such cases have not been placed before us.

5. We do not find any infirmities in the order dated 1-12-1995 passed in C.D.F. Case No. 3149/94 by the District Forum, Calcutta which is re-affirmed hereby with the following modification and accordingly we dismiss the appeal.

6. We award cost of Rs. 1.000/- for this proceeding to the Appeal No. S.C.

586/ A/95 payable by the respondents Modi-Luft Airways.

7