Back
2010(1) CPR 520
ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PORT BLAIR
P.N. Sinha, President; Mrs. Bimal Behari Chakravarty, Member
Indian Airlines, Port Blair & Anr. —Appellants
versus
Alex Verghese & Anr. —Respondents
Appeal No. 1 of 2009
Decided on 25.11.2009
IMPORTANT POINT
When evidence produced before the District Forum is not sufficient to establish any fact or fact in issue on negligence or deficiency in service, the theory of preponderance of probabilities cannot be ruled out and reliance on preponderance of probabilities can be placed in arriving at the conclusion.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Deficiency in service—Complainant purchased tickets for air journey to and fro from Port Blair to Chennai—Return journey to port Blair from Chennai was found in waiting and was denied on ground that ticket jacket did not contain return flight coupon—Complainant had to fly by another airline—Claim for refund of non-utilized ticket was denied on ground that no refund was permissible against lost ticket—Point for consideration was whether appellant was negligent for loss or injury suffered by respondent—Though respondent could be said to be careless to some extent in not verifying whether return coupon was in ticket book or not but appellant acted too technically and pedantically when it had already charged for to and fro journey—It was a case of deficiency in service—Complainant-respondent held entitled to refund of the amount of unutilized ticket i.e., Rs.8,145 with interest at 8% p.a. and Rs.1000 as costs. (Paras 7 to 9,11,13 and 16)
Result: Appeal disposed of accordingly.
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Andaman, in C.D. Case No.50 of 2006.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 17.12.2005, the complainant respondent had purchased to and fro air tickets from the office of the appellant at Port Blair for his onward journey to Chennai on 18.12.2005 and return journey to Port Blair from Chennai on 29.12.2005 vide ticket No. 0582269505137. The respondent, accordingly, made his journey to Chennai from Port Blair on 18.12.2005 and during his return journey he approached the Indian Airlines office at Chennai for confirming his return journey as his return ticket was in the waiting list. At that time at Chennai it was detected that his ticket jacket did not contain the return flight coupon. Negotiation was made with the Port Blair Airport office and authority of appellant from Port Blair intimated the Indian Airlines authority at Chennai to allow the complainant to make the return journey, but the staff of Indian Airlines at Chennai refused the respondent to make return journey on such ticket. Subsequently, the respondent returned to Port Blair by purchasing the tickets of Jet Airways. The respondent also purchased fresh air tickets from the office of appellant at Chennai -but, it was also in the waiting list and amount of that fresh ticket was refunded to him. After return to Port Blair he made a claim for refund of money for the unused portion of journey but, the appellant did not take any step to dispose of his claim and, accordingly, the complaint was filed claiming refund of the fare along with the interest and the respondent also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000.
3. The appellant as opposite party contested the complaint by filing written objection wherein he denied the material averments of the complaint, and inter alia contended that, the complaint was not maintainable since the appellant being a body corporate, the Indian Airlines Ltd. now changed to Indian, was not made party in the instant matter. It is true that the respondent had purchased air tickets for the sector Port Blair / Chennai of 18.12.2005 and Chennai/Port Blair of 29.12.2005. The respondent was negligent as he could not produce the return flight coupon at the counter at Chennai. It was obligatory on the part of the respondent to check and verify his ticket. The rule is clear that there would be no refund against lost of ticket. In order to make claim for compensation under provisions of the Act there must be proof of negligence of opposite party. Section 14(1)(d) of the Act is not attracted in this case as in this matter the respondent himself was negligent who failed to produce the return flight coupon.
4. The District Forum after hearing both the parties and on consideration of evidence and materials on record allowed the complaint and directed the appellant and other to pay a sum of Rs.20,613, as compensation to the respondent. Being dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum the appellant moved this Commission in this appeal.
5. Mr. M. Lall, the learned Advocate for the appellant drew our attention to the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act and contended that in order to claim compensation the consumer has to establish that he suffered loss or injury due to the negligence of the, opposite party. In this matter there was no negligence on the part of the appellant and it was respondent who was negligent as he failed to produce return flight coupon for making his journey from Chennai to Port Blair. He also referred to paragraph 4 of the complaint where it was mentioned by the respondent that he was not aware as to how the return flight coupon was missing from the ticket. Mr. M. Lall further submitted that the respondent was negligent as after purchasing the ticket he did not verify the ticket and a
