DECCAN AVIATION LTD Vs. KEKI PHEROZE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one appears on behalf of the respondent despite issue of notice and the attorney by Mr. K. Maruthi Rao, Advocate having been filed on record. We have heard Counsel for the petitioner but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent/ complainant despite due opportunity accorded to him. The consumer dispute raised in the complaint was about the non-refund of the fare which the complainant had paid to the petitioner Airlines as he had to cancel the ticket due to the fact that the flight which was to leave Hyderabad from Bombay was postponed to 10.20 p.m. night instead of 12.40 noon and the complainant had to purchase the ticket from other airlines. The District Forum allowed the complaint with the direction to the Airlines to refund a sum of Rs. 5,502 towards ticket as also the STD call charges Rs. 1420 along with interest @ 9% p.a. and a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards cost to the complainant. Not satisfied with the same, the complainant approached the State Commission for upgradation of the said relief. The State Commission has substantially modified the order of the District Forum upholding the refund of amount of ticket but had substantially increased the amount of compensation to Rs. 50,000.

(2.) Aggrieved by the same order, the petitioner Airlines has approached this Commission. Limited notice was issued to the respondent on the question as to whether in the given facts and circumstances, the award of Rs. 50,000 as compensation was excessive/on higher side. We have heard Counsel for the petitioner. He reiterates that the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000 is on higher side and is not commensurate with the extent of deficiency even if the finding of deficiency is to be upheld. During the course of argument Ms. Radha Rao, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent. We find force in the submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner because the main grievance of the complainant was that after the rescheduling of the flight of which he had received intimation several days in advance of the journey, the fare paid by him was not refunded despite promise. Respondent called petitioner's office umpteen number of times and spent about Rs. 1,400 towards telephone STD charges. Assuming all the averments of the complaint to be correct, we are still of the clear view that the compensation awarded by the State Commission is not commensurate with the nature and extent of the deficiency found on the part of the Airlines in not refunding the ticket fare within a reasonable period. In our view, it would adequately meet the ends of justice if compensation awarded by the State Commission is reduced to Rs. 20,000 going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case. The revision petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the State Commission is modified to the above extent. Rs. 28,922 has been deposited by the petitioner Airlines in the District Forum. The respondent/complainant shall be entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon, if any, from the District Forum. The revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.