IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS.No. 425 of 1996()
1. K.A.KUNJUMOIDEEN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. HANSA TRAVELS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ(SR.)BABU KARUKAPADATH
For Respondent :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :15/06/2010
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
------------------------
A.S.No.425 Of 1996
----------------------
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Defendants in O.S.No.974 of 1992 on the file of the III
Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam are the appellants. The suit was
filed for recovery of money. Trial court decreed the suit allowing
the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.73,637/- and interest at the
rate of 18% per annum of Rs.58,442/- from the date of the suit
till reaslisation from the defendants jointly and severally with
costs. Parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and
defendants as arrayed in the suit.
2. The suit was filed on the allegation that the plaintiff as
a travel agent for Indian and International travel issued two
International Air Travel Tickets of Pan American Airways, New
York, to defendants 1 & 2 for travel from Cochin to New York and
back to Cochin for a total cost of Rs.65,408/- on 30.1.1991 as
the agent of the Air Lines M/s.Panam New York and that the
defendants paid only Rs.25,000/- on 6.1.1992 to the plaintiff
towards the cost of the tickets and balance amount of the tickets
A.S.No.425 Of 1996
::2::
and another Rs.18,034/- as the balance amount of the cost of the
ticket brought for them by the plaintiff earlier are due.
3. Defendants filed a written statement disputing the
liability and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Plaintiff adduced evidence in support of its
contentions. PW1 was examined. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked.
Defendants did not adduce any evidence either oral or
documentary.
5. The total cost of the tickets is Rs.65,408/-. According
to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.18,034/- was also due from the
defendants towards cost of other tickets brought for them by the
plaintiff earlier. The plaintiff sent lawyer notice to the defendants
demanding the dues and interest, the defendants replied
admitting the purchase of two tickets and also their liability of
Rs.65,408/- but, denied the earlier dues of Rs.18,034/-. In the
reply the defendant also offered payment of Rs.40,408/-.
6. PW1 who is the assistant manager of the plaintiff
company proved plaint averments. Ext.A2 is the invoice for
purchasing two tickets to America in Pan Airways. Plaintiff
A.S.No.425 Of 1996
::3::
tendered evidence to prove that they used to purchase Air
Tickers on credit basis and that they have to pay the money
within 15 fifteen days. According to PW1 they maintained
accounts of the defendants. Ext.A3 is the true copy of the
account book. Ext.A4 is the application submitted for visa.
Ext.A5 is the ledger kept in the office of the plaintiff. The
accounts of the defendants is shown in page Nos.233, 234 and
355. Exts.A5(a), (b) & (c) are the relevant entries and Ext.A5(d)
is the true copy. It is the case of the plaintiff that they are not
liable for the loss of the tickets but they used to assist to get the
refund. They have written to the Panam Air Lines at Bombay, by
that time, their head office at Bombay was closed. Then they
wrote to their head office at New Jercy. Ext.A6 is the copy of
that letter. But there was no reply. The lost tickets were
handed over by the defendants. But, by that time the Panam Air
Lines was taken over by the Delta Airlines. The tickets were sent
to Delta at Bombay. Ext.A7 is the copy of that letter. Ext.A9 is
the copy of the notice sent to the defendants demanding
Rs.73,637/- and Ext.A10 is the reply. From the documentary
A.S.No.425 Of 1996
::4::
evidence produced by the plaintiff would show that the
defendants made use of the plaintiff’s service for arranging Air
Tickets. Plaintiff also proved that the balance amount of
Rs.58,442/- is due to the plaintiff and the accounts maintained by
the plaintiff show that a sum of Rs.18,034/- is also due from the
defendants.
7. The contentions of the defendants was also
appreciated by the trial court in detail. The material evidence
also show that the plaintiff has taken all possible ways to get
back the refund but, failed. The material evidence adduced by
the plaintiff show that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum
as claimed in the plaint. The appellants/defendants have not
made out any valid ground to interfere with the decree and
judgment passed by the trial court. I also fully agree with the
findings recorded by the trial court.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum for Rs.58,442/-
from the date of suit till realisation is excessive and unjust and
requested this Court to fix a just amount towards interest. I find
A.S.No.425 Of 1996
::5::
the request of the appellants is just and reasonable. Therefore,
the interest portion requires modification.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Rate of interest
is fixed at the rate of 9% per annum. To that extent the decree
and judgment passed by the trial court is modified. There will be
no order as to costs.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
bkn/-