D S ANANTH Vs. SHUBH PRAYAN COMMUNICATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL No. 2459/2008 is by the Complainant and Appeal No. 205/2009 is by the O.P. No. 1, challenging the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore Urban 1st Additional, passed in Complaint No. 740/2008 to the extent they are aggrieved. The parties in these proceedings are referred as per their positions before the District Forum. The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant intending to visit Puri Jagannatha Temple booked the tickets with OP No. 1 on 1.12.2007 from Bangalore to Bhubaneshwar and back. According to the complainant, O.Ps. 2 and 3 are the Agents of OP No. 1. The case of the Complainant is that he wanted to travel from Bangalore to Bhubaneshwar on 5.12.2007 in King Fisher Flight which leaves Bangalore at 7.30 p.m. to Bhubaneshwar. The air fare to travel in King Fisher Air Flight is Rs. 4,085. Accordingly, he paid a sum of Rs. 4,085 to OP1. The further case of the complainant is that even though OP1 collected a sum of Rs. 4,085, he issued a ticket to travel in Air Deccan Flight the fare of which is Rs. 2,715. The complainant is a senior citizen and a heart patient and therefore he wanted to travel only in the King Fisher Flight as the food and other facilities are provided in the said Flight. But, unfortunately, when he went to the Airport, he found that the ticket issued by OP1 is to travel in Air Deccan in which the facilities that were available in the King Fisher Flight are not available. Further, there is a delay of 21/2 hours from the schedule time for the departure of Air Deccan Flight which ultimately reached Bhubaneshwar at the mid night 12 O'clock and no food and other facilities were provided in the said flight and thereby even after arrival at Bhubaneshwar, the complainant could not get anything to eat as all the Hotels by that time were closed. Hence, according to the complainant, OP1 indulged in the unfair trade practice in not issuing the ticket to travel in the King Fisher Flight though collected the fare of Rs. 4,085.

(2.) THE defence of the OP in its version is that the complainant after satisfying himself regarding availability of the Flight from Bangalore to Bhubaneshwar purchased the Air Tickets to travel in Air Deccan and therefore there is no deficiency in service on its part. In the version, OP1 admits the air fare in the Air Deccan Flight is Rs. 2,715 and the air fare in the King Fisher Flight is Rs. 4,085. OP Nos. 2 and 3 in their version have stated that they are not in any way responsible as no Ticket has been issued to the complainant to travel in King Fisher Airlines and further that there are no allegations of mismanagement or they indulged in untrade trade practice as against them and therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed. OP No. 4 in its version has denied all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint. The further defence of this OP is that they are in no way responsible or liable to pay any compensation as there is no deficiency on their part.

(3.) ALL the parties have filed Affidavits by way of evidence and also produced documents in support of their cases. The District Form on the rival contention oi the parties, framed the following 2 issues: