IMPORTANT POINT
Realisation of double the fare for a single journey when the complainant lost the ticket but had its zerox copies and informed Airlines well in time was a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice on the part of Opp.party.

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 copies of the tickets. He informed the authority of the Airlines and he also made a G.D. Entry at the P.S. about the loss. The Indian Airlines Authorities paid no need to him and insisted upon him buying three fresh tickets for travelling 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 appeliant 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 1st 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 sections 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 sections 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 Forum having a single member section 5 of the Consumer Protection(Amendment) Act, 1991. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Wamen Rao v. Union of Indid, Maleshwar v. Kanhaiya and Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdevan Dubey, have clearly held that judgments even of the Supreme Court, delivered in ignorance of a relevant satutory provision or of an earlier decision thereof is not binding as a precedent. It is, therefore, respectfully submitted 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.7,217/- 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- 1992. Such illegal realisation of double the fare for a single journey on the part of the appellant amounts not only to a serious deficiency in its service but also to highly unfair trade practice and is complainable before the learned District Forum at Calcutta under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

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, shortcoming 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 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 document a passenger takes refund anywhere in India after surrendering his air-tick