NORTRANS MARINE SERVICES PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. AIR INDIA AND ORS
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Nortrans Marine Services Pvt Ltd And Ors
Air India And Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs. 18,00,000 on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party Air India Ltd.
(2.) THE case of the complainants is as follows:
The first complainant is a registered company engaged in shipping and steamer agency business. Second complainant is the Chairman and Managing Director of the first complainant, Nortrans Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. The 3rd complainant is the Deputy General Manger of the first complainant company. The first complainant booked two air tickets for the complainants 2 and 3 in connection with the business activities. A meeting was scheduled for negotiating terms of agency with the identified persons. The said meetings were to be held on 24.1.2003, 25.1.2006 and 26.1.2003. The complainants 2 and 3 had to reach Dubai on 23.1.2001. The two air tickets were booked for their journey from Cochin to Dubai and those air tickets were booked through the 3rd opposite party M/s Travel and Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. As per the air tickets they had to fly by Air India flight scheduled for departure at 21.00 hours. The second opposite party is the Cochin International Airport Ltd represented by its Chairman and Managing Director. The complainants 2 and 3 reported at the check -in counter of the first opposite party at Cochin Airport at 19.50 hours. But, they were denied boarding card by stating that they have been treated as standby passengers. Even after repeated requests for their journey in the said flight, it was denied. The Duty Manger (Traffic) Air India at Cochin International Airport did not do anything and thereby the complainants had to return by cancelling their schedule programme in Dubai. The complainants suffered mental strain and inconvenience due to the cancellation of their journey. The first complainant suffered business loss causing financial loss, which is estimated at Rs.5,00,000. The business of the first complainant company was postponed by 3 months and' it resulted in loss to the tune of Rs. 12,00,000. Thus, the deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party caused loss of Rs. 18,00,000, Hence the complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 1800,000 with costs of Rs.3,000.
(3.) THE first opposite party entered appearance and filed written version contending as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is barred by limitation. The Hon'ble Commission is not having the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party. There was no privity of contract between the first complainant and the first opposite party. The purpose of the visit of the complainants was not aware to the first opposite party and the first opposite party was never informed about the purpose of the visit of the complainants 2 and 3 to Dubai. The complainants never approached the first opposite party for booking any air tickets. The 2nd and 3rd complainants were having confirmed tickets for their flight in flight No.AI0964 of 23.1.2003. The departure time of the said flight was at 21.00 hours from Cochin to Dubai. The complainants 2 and 3 reported at the check -in counter only at 19.50 hours. They had to report at the check -in counter 3 hours prior to the scheduled departure time. The complainants did not report within the stipulated time and hence the needy wait listed passengers were uplifted and given accommodation in order to avoid vacant seats. The allegation that the first opposite party denied seat in flight for receiving illegal consideration from other passengers is denied and those allegations are made with mala fide intention. The complainants could not fly on the said flight since they arrived late. The complainants never requested for alternative arrangement. The flight No. AI 963 of 23.1.2003 was overbooked as Thursday is a favorite day of departure to Dubai considering the weekend in the Gulf being Friday. Admittedly, complainants reported at the check -in counter only at 19.50 hours. The complainants have not suffered any financial loss or mental agony or inconvenience. The compensation claimed is without any basis. There was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party. No e -mail message was sent by the complainants to the Chairman and Managing Director of Air India at Bombay. There is no cause of action for the complaint. Thus, the first opposite party requested for dismissal of the complaint.
The second opposite party filed separate written version contending that the second opposite party had no role in booking of the air tickets or providing accommodation in the flight of the first opposite party. The second opposite party has only provided the infrastructure at the Cochin International Airport. There was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the second apposite party; that the second opposite party is an unnecessary party to the complaint. Hence the second opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint filed against it.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.