Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K. Ramanna, President, A.M. Bennur and Rama Ananth, Members
AEROFLOT RUSSIAN AIRLINES - Appellant
Versus
SAVITHRI J. SHETTY AND ORS. - Respondents
Appeal No. 2858 of 2009
Decided on : 03-11-2011
Mr. Vishwanath, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. V.K. Bhat, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for correct service of notice and the consequences of placing a party ex parte due to incorrect service.
Headnote:
C.P. Act of 1986 - Consumer Dispute - Section 15 - Summary of Acts and Sections: C.P. Act of 1986, Section 15 - The court found that the District Forum had erred in placing the appellant ex parte due to incorrect service of notice. The court remitted the matter back to the District Forum for fresh inquiry and trial after causing notice to the correct address of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant availed the services of the OPs for travel to Bosnia but was not allowed to board the flight despite having purchased a confirmed ticket. The complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Forum had erred in placing the appellant ex parte due to incorrect service of notice and remitted the matter back for fresh inquiry and trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order under appeal is unjust and improper. 2. If so, whether it calls for the interference from this Commission. 3. To what order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the District Forum had committed an error in placing the appellant ex parte due to incorrect service of notice, and therefore, the impugned order was unjust and improper.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the District Forum for fresh inquiry and trial.
ORDER
A.M. Bennur, Member - This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the C.P. Act of 1986 by the OP No. 1 in Complaint No. 273/2001 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangalore being aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2008.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant availed the services of OPs so as to travel to Bosnia, they have purchased Air ticket in that regard. They wanted to board the plane from New Delhi. Though OP collected the necessary flight charges and got confirmed ticket but somehow they were not allow to board the said flight. Due to which complainant for no fault of theirs they were put to greater hardship and prejudice. Their repeated requests and demand made to OP to compensate them went in vain. Hence, they felt deficiency in service. Accordingly, filed the complaint.
3. It appears when the said complaint came to be allowed earlier OP preferred an appeal before this Commission in Appeal No. 1177/2005, it was allowed vide order dated 30.9.2006 and the matter was remitted back to the DF to dispose of the matter afresh after due notice to the OPs. After remand, notices were sent to the OPs it is observed by the DF that OP 1, 3 and 4 appeared through their Advocate. OP No. 2 though served with the notice by paper publication failed to appear and only OP No. 2 filed a detailed version, other OPs 3 and 4 almost adopted the version of OP No. 2 and after considering the records, evidence and hearing the parties, DF was pleased to allow the said complaint against OP Nos. 1 and 2 only. Being aggrieved by the same, now OP No. 1 has come up with this appeal on the following grounds:
That DF has not properly considered the correct address of OP No. 1. On previous occasion also DF issued the notice to the wrong address and that service of notice was held sufficient. OP was placed ex parte. Then complaint came to be allowed. That order was challenged in Appeal No. 1177/2005. The said appeal came to be allowed. In the said appeal, present appellant has given correct address. When the matter was remanded to the DF, DF again issued the notice to the old address as noted by the complainant in the complaint. Though all these facts are established by the OP No. 1/appeallant that there is no proper service of notice to the correct address it is lost sight and ignored by the DF. DF has committed the same error which was committed on the earlier occasion when it allowed the complaint. If the said order is not set aside the appellant who will be put to greater hardship and prejudice. When there is no due service of the notice the appellant has no occasion to defend the case hence placing the appellant ex parte is illegal. Among these grounds, appellant prayed for allowing the appeal.
4. Heard the arguments.
5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this appeal are as under:
1. Whether the impugned order under appeal is unjust and improper
2. If so, whether it calls for the interference from this Commission
3. To what order
6-7. We have gone through the impugned order under appeal, the grounds urged in the appeal memo and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the foregoing paragraphs, our findings on point Nos. 1 and 2 are in affirmative and point No. 3 as per detailed order
Reasons:
8. On perusal of the complaint, the address of the appellant/OP No. 1 is noted as Aeroflot Russian International Airlines, No. 1 BMC. House, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi-1. But according to the appellant, they have changed their address from the old one before filing of the complaint. So without issuing the notice to the correct address of OP No. 1 it was wrongly held by the DF that service of notice on OP No. 1 is sufficient and placed ex parte. OP No. 1 challenged the impugned order under appeal No. 1177/2005 wherein they have given the address Aeroflot Russian Airlines, Tolstoy House, 15-17, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-1. Even after remand
