DIRECTOR RESEARCH MRTP COMMISSION Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was made by one Shri Vinay Sharma stating that the ticket issued by the Indian Airlines for his return journey from Bangalore to Delhi was stolen or lost and even though he lodged an FIR, the Indian Airlines refused to issue a duplicate ticket on the ground that its rules did not permit issuance of a duplicate ticket or refund against the lost ticket. The Director (Research) was asked to investigate into the complaint and submit his Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR ). The Director (Research) accordingly, submitted his PIR after investigation and recommended institution of an enquiry against the respondent, the Indian Airlines Ltd. for restrictive trade practices. A Notice of Enquiry was accordingly issued to the respondent.

(2.) The respondent in its reply has stated that on the jacket of the ticket it is clearly mentioned that no refund is permissible against the lost ticket. It has been further stated that this condition forms a part of the contract of carriage and is binding on the parties. It has been further clarified that approximately 90 lacs tickets are issued by the respondent every year and according to the rules a ticket can be returned and refund can be asked for, it can also be re-routed and though it is not transferable, it is difficult to check the identity of each and every passenger and it is for these reasons that a specific condition has been incorporated in the contract of carriage that no refund will be permitted against the lost ticket. In support of its above contention in the reply, the respondent has cited the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharathi Knitting Company V/s. DHL Worldwide Express, 1996 2 CPJ 25, stating that it is purely a contractual matter and does not amount to a restrictive or unfair trade practice.

(3.) On completion of pleadings, following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent has indulged in or is indulging in the restrictive trade practices as alleged in the Notice of Enquiry (2) Whether the alleged restrictive trade practices are not prejudicial to public interest