Gulf Trivandrum Air Fare Forum vs The Chairman And Managing … on 5 June, 1991

0
58
National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Gulf Trivandrum Air Fare Forum vs The Chairman And Managing … on 5 June, 1991
Bench: V Eradi


JUDGMENT

(1) After hearing counsel appearing on both sides we have come to the conclusion that this petition has to fail on the ground that the petitioner does not come within the definition. The expression of ‘Complainant’ contained in Section 2(1) (d) and 2(1) (b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner is an Association of persons based in Dubai and the petition has been filed on behalf of the non- resident Indians in Dubai who hail from the State of Kerala and who make use of the air transport service provided by Air India for their journey from Dubai to Trivandrum.

(2) Since the petitioner is not a voluntary Consumer Organisation registered under any law inforce in India, the petitioner cannot come within Clause 2(d) (ii) of Section 2(1) (b). It was, however, contended for the petitions that his client would be a ‘Consumer’ as defined in Clause (d) of Section 2(i) because it is an association of persons which constitutes a “person” as defined in Clause (m). It may be that the petitioner can be regarded as a “person” for the purposes of the Act but in order to become a ‘Consumer’ under Clause (d)(ii) such person should have hired a service for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised etc. The petitioner association has not hired any service and the complaint is not in respect of any deficiency in the service rendered pursuant to an arrangement of hiring for consideration. The grievance put forward in the Complaint is that the fare levied by Air India for the journey from Dubai to Trivandrum is unreasonably high especially when compared to the charges levied in respect of other like sectors. Under the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, the reasonableness of the passenger tariff for goods and service cannot legitimately be made the subject matter of a complaint as defined in Section 2(i)(c) of the Act. In as much as the petitioner does not satisfy the definition of “consumer” also, the contention raised before us that the complaint is maintainable cannot be accepted. We accordingly dismiss the petition but we do not make any costs to the parties.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *