BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD FA NO.244/2021 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC.NO.84/2020 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT COMMISSION-II,HYDERABAD Between :

M/s.Karthikeya Travels & Forex, Rep. by its Managing Partner # No.49 & 50, Ground Floor, Nilgiri Block, Aditya Enclave, Ameerpet, Hyderabad – 500 038.

…… Appellant/Opp.Party No.1 And

1. Sri Putlana Pandu Rangam Setty, S/o.Putlana Nagi Setty, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o.50, LIG-B, A.S.Rao Nagar, ECIL, Hyderabad 500 062.

..….Respondent/Complainant

2. M/s.Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Rep by its MD & CEO, Ashok Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 099.

……Respondent/Opp.Party No.2 (Complaint against R2/OP2 was not pressed by Complainant and hence R2 is not necessary party to this appeal)

Counsel for the Appellant/Opp.Party No.1 : Mr.Srinivas Karra Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Party-in-person QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN, IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT, And HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO, MEMBER-JUDICIAL FRIDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE.

Order: (Hon’ble Smt.Meena Ramanathan, I/c President.)

****

1. This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of Consumer Protection Act,2019 against the order dated 06.04.2021 in CC.No.84/2020 on the file of District Commission-II, Hyderabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The appellant is the opposite party No.1, respondent No.1 is the complainant and the respondent No.2 is the opposite party No.2 in CC.No.84/2020.

3. The complaint was initially filed against opposite parties 1 & 2 for the abrupt cancellation of the complainant’s tickets from Atlanta (U.S.A.) to Hyderabad. However, during the course of proceedings in the District Commission, opposite party No.1 was set exparte and the complainant filed a memo on 4.9.2020 not pressing the complaint against opposite party No.2.

4. The brief facts of the case on hand are as follows:

The complainant and his wife were travelling from Hyderabad to Atlanta and had booked their tickets through opposite party No.1 – the travel agent of opposite party No.2. They had also booked their return journey tickets through opposite party No.1 scheduled for 18.9.2019. The total amount spent on the tickets was Rs.1,28,000/-. Their onward journey was undertaken successfully on 27.3.2019 but the return journey was cancelled and it is the complainant’s case that the opposite parties did not provide any alternate services and the complainant was forced to shell down Rs.91,306/- towards ticket cost. Since the opposite party No.1 had failed to provide the return journey services, they have been deficient and they have not refunded the amount collected from the complainant and this amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay total compensation of Rs.4,91,306/- towards cancelled journey, extra expenditure incurred, unfair trade practice legal expenses etc.

5. Before the District Commission, opposite party No.1 failed to file written version as such Opposite Party No.1 was set exparte. Against opposite party No.2, complaint was not pressed by the complainant vide memo dated 04.09.2020.

6. Before the District Commission, Complainant filed Evidence Affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Written arguments of the complainant filed.

7. The District Commission allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to refund Rs.91,306/- (which includes Rs.64,000/- paid by complainant initially and Rs.27,306/- incurred for purchase of new return journey tickets) to the complainant; to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing inconvenience, hardship and mental agony to the Complainant and costs of Rs.5000/- towards litigation charges. Time for compliance was given as 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.

8. Aggrieved by the above said order of the District Commission, appellant/opposite party No.1 filed this appeal with the following grounds:

 The District Commission failed to see that w