CHERIAN VARGHESE Vs. RIYA TRAVEL AND TOURS (INDIA) PVT.LTD.
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2009-3-4
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 07,2009

CHERIAN VARGHESE Appellant
VERSUS
Riya Travel And Tours (India) Pvt.Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.V.VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER - (1.)The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 9th November, 2006 passed by the CDFR, Ernakulam in CC 195/2006. The complaint herein was filed by the appellant as complainants against the respondents as opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs. 90,000 for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate written versions and contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The first opposite party alleged negligence on the part of the second opposite party and that the second opposite party alleged deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. The forum below on an appreciation of the evidence on record accepted the case of the complainant to a certain extent and thereby found the second opposite party Srilankan Airlines Limited liable for the inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant. The forum below exonerated the first opposite party from the liability to compensate the complainants. Thereby the forum below passed the impugned order directing the second opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000 and cost of Rs. 1,500 to the complainants. The complainants are not fully satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the forum below. Hence the present appeal.
(2.)We heard the counsel for the appellants/complainants and the respondents 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the appellants/complainants submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that both the opposite parties were negligent in issuing the air tickets to the complainants and that both the parties were fully aware of the fact that the complainants are not in a position to get the connection flight from London to Washington. He also canvassed for the position that the forum below has not fully appreciated the inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainants while awarding the compensation. Thus, the appellants/complainants requested to enhance the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the first respondent/first opposite party supported the findings and conclusions of the forum below and that the learned counsel for the second respondent/second opposite party also supported the findings and conclusions of the forum below. The learned counsel for the second respondent/second opposite party further argued that the first opposite party ought to have been found liable and responsible for issuing the air tickets to the complainants. It is further submitted that the complainants were provided food and accommodation at the London airport and that the second/opposite party themselves arranged the tickets for the complainants for their journey from London to Washington. Thus, the second respondent/second opposite party, requested for dismissal of the present appeal.
(3.).The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the forum below can be justified in exonerating the first respondent/first opposite party from the liability to compensate the complainants?

2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the forum below can be treated as just and adequate considering the inconvenience and hardship caused to and suffered by the appellants/complainants?

3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 9th November, 2006 passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC No.195/06?



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.