A.K.ANNAMALAI, J - (1.) 1st opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 3 for deficiency of service and for refund of Rs.40,954/- towards air ticket fare for cancellation of service and Rs.460/- as service charges and Rs.5000/- for the costs.
(3.) The brief details of the complaint are as follows :- The 1st complainant is an advocate practicing at Coimbatore the 2nd complainant is the daughter of the 1st complainant. The 2nd complainant who is a doctor had to write an examination namely MRCOG Part I at Bombay on 7.3.05 therefore they have decided to go by air to Bombay on 6.3.05, approached the 3rd opposite party on 13.12.04 and arranged through the 2nd opposite party who confirmed tickets from Chennai to Mumbai for 6.3.05 and two confirm tickets for return journey on 8.3.05. The total fare comes to Rs.7520/- and the 2nd opposite party and 3rd opposite party collected Rs.7980/- including their service charges of Rs.460/-. Both the complainants have also reserved for train tickets from Coimbatore to Chennai and for the return journey in accordance with the flight timings and the rooms also were booked at Bombay. But suddenly about 10 days before scheduled flight dates the first opposite party phoned to the complainant and said that all flights from 5.3.05 to 15.3.05 were cancelled. With great difficulty the complainants managed to buy 2 tickets in Air India for both journey by paying at a total cost of Rs.15,914/-. As the timings of the flights changed the train tickets also cancelled and room reservation at Mumbai also had to be modified. No specific reason had been given by the 1st opposite party for the cancellation excepting to say that it was due to administrative reasons. The first opposite party has collected a huge amounts running to several crores of rupees from the public and announces that the flights are being cancelled. It is nothing but straight cheating of the public and also amounts to deficiency of service. The opposite party has not only the public and also amounts to deficiency of service. The opposite party has not only return the fare but also the entire extra amount. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are colluding with 1st opposite party in defrauding the public, hence they are also liable to pay compensation. In its reply the 1st opposite party has said that it has returned the fare to the complainant, but it is false. Even after receiving notice, the opposite parties did not even send any reply the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and pleaded that they are only agents. Hence this complaint.;