Back
1992(2) CPR 66
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CALCUTTA
Mrs. Jyotirmoyee Nag, President & Prof Sunil Kanti Kar, Member
The Commercial Manager, Indian Airlines, Calcutta - Appellant
Versus
S.N. Mukherjee – Respondent
S.C. Case No. 509 of 1991
Decided on 8.4.1992
For the Appellant:Rabindranath Majumdar & Tuhin Chatterjee, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Santanu Mukherjee.
IMPORTANT POINT
Act of recovering twice the air fare for a single flight upon a misinterpretation of rule by Indian Air Lines is a deficiency in service and a valid cause for complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 & 17 - Deficiency in service - 'Respondent purchased air tickets to travel from Bombay to Calcutta - He lost the tickets but had got xerox copies made before loss• Appellant was informed about loss of tickets & report was also lodged with police - On appellant’s insistence respondent had to buy fresh tickets to travel by same flight - Whether act of appellant amounts to deficiency in service? Yes'-
Held: The said illegal act of recovering twice the Air Fare for a single flight upon a misinterpretation of its alleged rules by Indian Airlines Corporation is a fault, imperfection, short-coming or inadequacy in the manner of performance in relation to its service or transporting passengers by air and thus amounts to deficiency in its said service The said illegal act of refusing to perform the service of carrying the respondent and his wife and daughter unless they purchased second air ticket for the same flight is also an unfair trade practice within tJ1e meaning of sub section(5) of Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1989 and is thus cause for a valid complaint under Section 2(c)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The argument of the appellant Indian Airlines Corporation that it had to insist on the respondent purchasing another set of tickets for the same flight to prevent fraudulent malpractice by unscrupulous air travelers who may take refund of their air-fares and then avail of the flight on the false pica that they have lost their tickets, is wholly without substance because the moment a passenger takes ref und anywhere in India after surrendering his air-ticket, the said fact is recorded in all the consoles of its computer at all the offices and airports of Indian Airlines throughout the country and such a passenger would not be able to secure a boarding card from the airport of departure of the said flight even if he produces a xerox copy of the air ticket already surrendered by him for obtaining refund of the fare. In the instant case neither did imposters impersonating as the respondent and his wife and daughter attempt to board the aeroplane nor did anybody else claim refund against the lost tickets.(Para 4)
Result: Appeal dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 3,000/-.
Mrs. Jyotirmoyee Nag, President - The respondent purchased two Full Tickets and a Half ticket to travel by air from Bombay to Calcutta. He lost the" tickets but before the loss he had made xerox copis of the tickets. He informed the authority of the Air Lines and he also made a G.D. Entry at the P.S. about the loss. The Indian Airlines Authorities paid n6 heed to him and insisted upon him buying three fresh tickets for traveling by the same Plane. A preliminary point was taken that the referred judgment of the Calcutta District Forum is a nullity.
2. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of N. Taneja v. Calcutta District Forum cited by the 'appellant in support of its preliminary ground that the learned District Forum's order under appeal signed only by Shri Shyamsundar Gupta as President, is non est and should be set aside, is a judgment per incuriam and is not at all binding on this Hon’ble Commission. The said judgment of the Hon’ble High Court was delivered without at all adverting to the provisions of Section 18A and 29A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 introduced therein with retrospective effect from the commencement of the said Act by the Consumer Protection(Amendment) Act, 1991. The said two section cure the invalidity of any order caused by the defect in composition of any of the learned Forums or Commissions under the said Act and was introduced to validate a large number of orders passed by District Forums having a single member.(Section 5 of the Consumer Protection(Amendment) Act, 1991. The Hori’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Waman Rao v. Union of India, Mamleshwar v. Kanhaiya and Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdevan Dubey have clearly held that judgments even of the Supreme Court, delivered in ignorance of a relevant statutory provision or of an earlier decision thereof is not birding as a precedent. We therefore hold that this Hon’ble Commission can proceed to decide the appeal on merits without remanding the original case to the learned District Forum, Calcutta, for hearing afresh by two or three members thereof.
3. The respondent suffered pecuniary loss of Rs. 7212/- as well as damages for harassment because of the illegal insistence on the part of the ,appellant in making the respondent pay air fares twice for a single flight by him, his wife and daughter on 17.2.1991 merely because they had lost their air-tickets at Bombay Central Railway Station on 15.2.1991. Such illegal realization of double the fare for a single journey on the part of the appellants amounts not only to a serious deficiency in its service but also to highly unfair trade practice and is complain able before the learned District Forum at Calcutta under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4, The said illegal act of recovering twice the air fare for a single flight upon a misinterpretation of its alleged rules by Indian Airlines Corporation is a fault, imperfection, short-coming or inadequacy ill the manner of performance m relation to its service or transporting passengers by air and thus amounts to deficiency in its said service. The said illegal act of refusing to perform the service of carrying the respondent and his wife and daughter unless they purchased second air tickets for the same night is also an unfair trade practice within the meaning of sub section(5) of Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1989 and is thus cause for a valid complaint under Section 2(c)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The argument of the appellant Indian Airlines Corporation that it had to insist on the respondent purchasing another set of tickets for the same flight to prevent fraudulent malpractice by unscrupulous air-travellers who may take refund of their air-fares and then avail of the flight on the false plea that they have lost their tickets, is wholly without substance because the moment a passenger takes refund anywhere in India after surrendering his air-ticket, the said fact is re
