FA. 638/2011, F.A. 316/2009 & F.A. 132/2009. Case: 1. Managing Director, Travelon Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., 2. The Managing Director, Quantas, GSA Transworld Travels Pvt. Ltd., 3. The Managing Director, Indian Airlines, [now known as National Aviation Company of India Ltd.,], Chennai Vs 1. Dr. Mary Ramasamy, 2. Miss Niranjana Ramasamy, Rep. through her guardian and next friend her mother, Mary Ramasamy, 3. Miss Krupa Ruth Ramasamy, Rep. through her guardian and next friend, Her mother Mary Ramasamy, 4. The Managing Director, Quantas, 5. The Managing Director, Indian Airlines, (Along with F.A.683/2011), 6. Dr. Mary Ramasamy, 7. Miss Niranjana Ramasamy, Rep. through her guardian and next friend her mother, Mary Ramasamy, 8. Miss Krupa Ruth Ramasamy, Rep. through her guardian and next friend, Her mother Mary Ramasamy, 9. Managing Director, Travelon Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., 10. The Managing Director, Indian Airlines, (Along with F.A.316/2009), 11. Dr. Mary Ramasamy, 12. Miss Niranjana Ramasamy, Rep. through her guardian and next friend her mother, Mary Ramasamy, 13. .... Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | FA. 638/2011, F.A. 316/2009 & F.A. 132/2009 |
| Counsel | For the Appellant: M/s.K.P.Kiran Rao, Advocate., M/s.Sampathkumar Asso., Advocate., M/s.N.G.R. Prasad, Advocate. and For the Respondent: Mr.Sathish Rajan, Advocate., M/s.Sampathkumar Asso., Advocate., M/s.N.G.R. Prasad, Advocate., M/s.K.P.Kiran Rao, Advocate |
| Judges | Thiru M. Thanikachalam, President, Thiru.J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., Judicial Member and Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Judgement Date | September 14, 2011 |
| Court | Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
M. Thanikachalam J. President
-
The opposite parties 1 to 3 are the appellants in F.A.638/2011, F.A.316/2009 and F.A.132/2009 respectively.
-
The parties are referred in this order as arrayed in COP.723/2004.
-
Facts leading to this appeal:-
The complainants availing the service of the first opposite party-Travel Agent, booked 3 tickets for them, to Australia from Chennai and return also for husband / father, originally, paying a sum of Rs.99,350/-, then paying additional sum of Rs.4900/-. As per the itinerary, the complainants have to travel by Indian Airlines Flight IC 555 from Chennai to Singapore, leaving Chennai at 00.50 hours, then from Singapore by Quantas QF 16 to Melbourne at 9.20 a.m. on 21.12.2002.
-
As scheduled, the complainants came to Chennai International Airport, where they discovered to their surprise, their names were not in the Computer list of the passengers to travel on IC 555 and the seats in Quantas QF16 were still wait listed. The third opposite party informed at 11.50 p.m. that they were 200% booked, no possibility of traveling that night, thereby compelling the complainants, to stand in the street at midnight since they are not conversant with Chennai. On 21.12.2002, the third opposite party got confirmed tickets to fly on 22.12.2007 early morning by IC 555, requesting to contact the first opposite party, for rebooking of seats to fly from Singapore to Melbourne. The complainants were informed that only one seat was available on 22.12.2004, thereby compelling the complainants to wait till 23.12.2002 to get three seats, thereby compelling the complainant to wait 12 hours in Singapore Airport.
-
As per the rescheduled programme on 21.12.2004, the complainants reached Singapore though the flight was delayed by 1 hour 40 minutes and the complainants have to spent 13 hours at the Airport lounge itself, causing further inconvenience, since they have to take the route via Sydney, missing the connecting flight from Sydney also. Because of the delayed reaching of the complainants, their relatives at Australia were put to anxiety and the complainants also suffered a lot for unnecessary travel, expenses for food, including phone calls, suffering mental agony, for which, in all, the complainants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,06,697/-. Thus, attributing negligence, claiming the amount, a consumer complaint was filed.
-
The first opposite party remained exparte.
-
The second opposite party resisted the case contending that there was no deficiency of service, since their tickets were confirmed in QF 16/21 December Singapore/Melbourne. They were never on "Wait List" basis as incorrectly alleged by the complainants. If at all for not traveling in IC Indian Airlines, the third opposite party has to explain or the first opposite party has to explain. On reaching Singapore, the complainants have...
To continue reading
Request your trial