¥N 'ma HIGH comm' 0? KARNATAKA AT B££§§C}y'5sL:§I§*'ET»
DATED THIS THE 29th DaY"0F.w,Y .;éd§39__
% V
THE HOIWBLE MR. P. 9. §Ir§§"KAR$N,~
.% Ar%3%%%i%L%%
THE HOWBLE"E13?.'JiES'1§5IV§Jé':\?,V:(}$.;VS2%gBHA}4!I'I'
waif 1>§:'i'm'c}N 2009
1 :SUBHAPRAY£?§N {ZOMMUNICATION
mo 902/4,' 13TH 1'v:A'm, 3RD BLOCK
BEHIND SBY-I..;BAN§§,"'RAJAJINAGAAR
BANGAL.ORE- 19.') " , COMMON
V. REP B';'_PRO§7' GIP HARISH BABU... ..PE3TITIONER
V' ._ A. H ..... .. V
T.
._ , S/(;~..,m:~j"vKNOwN TO PETITIONER
g ' R/_A'1*~ir_.Ic> 697/A, IST BLOCK
3v--RD<-SfI'AG¥3, 13TH MAIN ROAD
~~BAjSAVESHWARANAGAR COMMON
13iaNGALORE~79. RESPONDENT
THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RELEVANT RECORDS FROM THE 131′ ADDITIONAL
…_DISTRICI’ CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SWATHI COMPLEX, SHESHADRIPURAM AT BANGALORE
BEARING COMPLAINT NO. 740/2008 AND ALSO APPEAL
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AND AS WELL AS
RESPGNDNET BEFORE THE STATE
REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE _amR1:\;G _ Nu. ._
205/2009 AND 2459/2008. ANLLTQ $37 “ASIDE, THE
IMPUGKEE} ORDER 91′. 30.3.2009 VIQ’E3«.VANN1E§X¢J–_APPEAL’
NO. 2459/08, 205/09 TREATING.’IT[ ARBITRARY,AULTRA
VIRUS AND CAPRICIOUS.
These Writ petitions (Wang ug fig fa;~e’1″1″‘m” inary V’
i-Icaring on this day, SABHAI~iF_I_’_}.3′ .-,_1::;a_;lc the fcfilmfiing.
These two. by the first
respondent in Appeal
No.2O5j”2O()’9 ;5.9n’« of State Consumer
Rcdm.sv.§é;1′– (hereinafter called -{he
State _Co1i3.i::1.issio;;);’) aggrieveti by the order dated
‘~ _ ‘appeal filcd. by the appellant herein is
}:f371;2.iss:¢:¢fi~ Appeal No,2=459/2008 filed by the
‘a’;1. § by enhancing the compensation to
Rs.é5,<)"'<)u/ § with interest at 12% per annum from the date
x V' V. 6f' before the District Forum til} the date of
and 'also cast of Rs.5,G00/ — payabiac by the
u Wwtrifioner herein.
xi’
2. The first respondent herein filed
No.’?40/ 2003 on the me of : Addl.
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (Rural) 8e :11:
(Urban), Bangalore, seeking for a 1-:iii’ect:io&1:1″._to
to pay a sum of Rs.’?5,00{)/«-
along with refund of «P: the”.
complainant towards eest of witti’i:r.te1’est at 8%
p.a. It is averted in the complain’ ant
intended fie Jagatguaaggempxe had purchased ‘to’
and AV e¢keesV1″‘£§o-:$§’e~..:eanga1om to Bhubaneshwar and
Bhuhaneshkxm} ta hffiattja géiom on 1.12.2007 from Opposite
V’ . Pa’rtyifi’- 15-thev~– petittetieftvherein who is the agent of Opposite
‘Zfhe date of departure was on 5.12.200′? at
t had insisted the first Qpposite
Party ~~’;.iesue particularly the ticket of Kingfisher Flight
. ‘~?_”‘ reaches Bhubaneshwar at about 9.20pm and he was
éwzrare of the fact that dinner would be served in the flight
so that he need net; go out for dinner. He cancelled his
retum journey ticket because there was no direct Kinfisher
V”
flight from Bhubaneshwar to Bangelore and ” =
in the cost of ticket firm: Bhuba::{e;shx§:ag§f2u$= the’
complainant cancelled his It.=~tm_f_11 jofxrqztéy was L.
purchased from first Opposite Party being the agent of flights had given the ticket instead of
Kingfisher cost ‘Kingfisher flight is
Rs.4,085/«€’eett”‘.tt3e.”:tie1tet”of Air Deccan flight is
Rs.2,’.7;j1’St)V§.%t ‘ t3a1’ty though colhected
Rs.4,0€.t*5[Ve “of air ticket of Kingfisher flight
had issued atizeiviiclfet of Deccan Flight, the cost of which
V’ _is .15/”–V amounts to unfair trade practice by
The complainant hoping of getting food in
flight dtcl not take food before boarding the
flight when he reached the airport he was restricted and
t aliow him to board Kinfisher flight instead they
e aggevéed him to beam Air Deccan flight by saying that it was
wttte ticket of Air Beccan and not the ficket of Kingfisher
flight. When he enquired in the counter, to his utter shock
x)’
5
he came to know that the fimt opposite party, the agcot had
choatcd him by collecting the fate of Kiznfisher
issued him the ticket of Air Deccan .
deficiency of scivicc and unfair t:z’a£1g;>Jracti:.:iie”o.’o[ ” =
the opposite party, There was delajzv of
in the schedule time of the ‘rfieV_¢ompI:ajiig;¥:t, .
Bhubaneshwar at about 12 ‘_§11€1n1g’ v;ht. Since
no food was sewed in; féfifzhout food
thmugfi out being a senior
citizcn é.=11c’–i<_hca1"tV suficred giddizmss and hunger
and food throughout the night as
Eoilaops vvhotels were closed and the complainant
V Eiil-_health and hardship due to the act of the
rty which amounts to deficiency of sezwicc
21115311". .V 4 trac:it:¢ Practice by the apposim party. Aficr
x V' V. f'ei1:m_ in g fiom the Bhubaneshwar, the complain' ant visited
opposite party's office and informed him about the
of the jountzey but the firs': opposite party shouted and
abused him in bafi language in front of his stafl and other
V'
customers and therefore to direct the opposiu: -« ..
Rs.75,000]– as compensation and
along with refund of dificzesgcc 2 L'
comp1am' ant towards the étgong with
interest at 24% per amaimm;
3. The peifition was respondent contending. étléat comfilamant is
misco11ceizr¢’§i;j_fiiiftsgaus-, .Vdévc§i£i–efzfierits and he is tzying to
Iaarasefi opfxjsifé’ befom the Forum and the
complaint’ Lj,s liaiiic It is averted that it is
the visited the ofiice of the opposite
1% ;.}and booked the air ticket of his choice and
“ihc availability of flights fiom Bangalore to
ahixbanesizséar on the said date and time and purchased air
ticlget. ‘I’fic finther averment that he purchased the ticket of
‘% ‘A-Kingfisher flight from Bangalore to Bhubaneshwar and paid
….Eés.4,{)85/=~ However, fickct of Air Deccan flight cost of
Rs.2,715/-n was given to him is not correct. The other
\.)’
averment made in the complaint that M
expecting that food Wouiri be sc:’vr:€i”‘i.:1. the: u
and flight reached Bhubancshfiét ”
Sufiemd hardship is dcnii§«:Ev:vL”” th§r€f9ifi:: for” V L’
dismissai of the complaint.
4. The mama ‘dates: 3.10.2903
allowed the to pay a
sum of Rs. collected towards air
ticket “at Rs.1V,i§3L§5-; ¥a:16:;:g”*-v§rith ‘cost of Rs.2,000/-. Being
aggrievedx” V.’§idcr of the Qisflict Forum, the
Appeal 530.2459] 2008 and the
1% ;:)c&:1.:{1:io1V1icir.i3cj: 1’t~:i:t_1 preferred Appeal 310.205 /2009 on the m of
t3:iiT;:.._V5,3t,é:it:»€9V”_'{.’,g)3:f;§1:3:i;.ission and the State Commission by order
dafbd confirmed the order passed by the Bisaict
E+”‘o.1:’_;1m ‘I€gaJ:tiing éeficicncy of service on the part of the
‘jaéiitibner herein and entitiemcnt cf complainant fin”
-»v.»:;:}ompensation and refund of diflbrence amount of the air
ticket and further held that the compensation awarded to
V’
the complainant is liable to be enhanced to Rs.
Rs.10,000[- and awaxded cast of Rs.5,ooo/_ gs «.
mfilnd Rs. 1,335 / – being excess flight
p.a. from December 12007g’u’1_1_. Q16′ .dr31’tc L.
accordingly, allowed the £33? tiit: and
dismissed the complair_it~._ ‘?§_L*:uvvLA’p¢ti°tio::rr§rVAvvhcrein in
Appeal 510.205/2009. said order of
the State Cqxnm c£a’.£&i these two writ
petitiofis “~r#1;)p_ei}£rr.t in Aypeal. 910.205/2009
and respo;;¢”e;;t_’T’i:;.jL:}=;;~;pea1 No.2459/2008 before the
Stat¢–ComIriia$£on. that the petitioner haszi issueci
t,ic1;:<=ji as pct t1*1"t: "'t1t=':qVucs'£ of the respondent herein and
on the part of the petitioner had not
and the District Forum and the State
Commifiséon were not justifitrd in directing tha petitioner to
A f 'the compensation awarded to the complainant.
S. We have heard the learned coamsei appearing for
the petitioner.
\)>
6. The learned counsei appearing for H
reiterated the grounds urged in the « w.
submitted that there was no Zdeficienfcjf .’ ‘
negligence on the part of fi1e__ pefiiiipiier {he ;
complaint flied by the respeiizient ifiave been
dismissed and State ‘s=.§ie’1:1t~-tp haee ed the
appeal filed by the dismissed the
appeal filed by ..
‘Wee V _/ agreful consideration to the
conten’£:iofi.__4 cg counsel appearing for the
pefitipixer and Vnsczmtinised the material on record.
V on Iecord would clearly Show that the
‘ieomplainant-respondent herein was issued a
ticket~~f;:;t*;.Rs.4,085/ – being the cost of air fare for travelling in
A “§Aiiff1’ig£_isher flight from Bangakore to Bhubaneshwar on
1.200′? is not disputed. The material on record would
H i”urther Show that though the amount of Rs.4,085/~ was
collected towards air fare, the petitioner had to travel by Air
\/’
10
Deccan Flight in which the fare fmm
Bhubaneshwar is Rs.2,71S/- . »{_>(‘:1V::itic:)7;m;1*¢
fiaveled in Air Deccan flight
Bhubancshwar at 12 0’ cbck ‘:11; midmg_f ‘h.:§;n&1;V§eaati:oner A
could not get any food ‘and. Q-$4’1e.t; _:fa’¢fi_ities”is-£:1dvi§.putab]e.
There is a concuxmnt L.Li qu:¢stion of fact that
there is dcficie;r;¢§,*.__ of “of the petitioner
herein Whq .%:é:.«=.;_1 io igggvex in Air Deccan
flight ” L_¥a. nw .–}?£ubaneshwar by paying
Rs,4,08’5[V-” thotzgh: of the air fame was only
Fa’s.2,’?_15/ — wéoncurrcnt finding is based upon
V’ .the :;i§ai’s1iai on ‘including the air tickets issucci by the
and the certificate to show that the
fietjfiofier. is anthorisfid to issue ticket for Kinfisher
Deccan Airlinesqespondents 3 and 4 in the
A ‘ _” The material on record would also cfiearly show
that Air Deccan flight reached Bhubancshwar in the
and petitioner could not get food and had to
\}
11
remain hungxy and petitioner is aged and L”
iflness has also beer: proved by
9. Having regard to thc7ah__ove u
it is clear that the State hgis-1@i1y ‘¢:nhaneed
the compensation from
Rs.i0,GOO/– by the ;ER s.25,0o0/_ and
awarded cost gof 12’/o per annum
from the f.he District Forum fiii
the dét: of ‘ha3″a1so confirzracd the order for
Iefunci ,3.’35f — = the excess air fare to the
compiziinant wifhVVii1tex=c:tst at % per annum iimm ficcember,
giate of paymcnt. There is no merit in the
beamed counsel appearing for the
petifionezir’ pefitioner is not guilty of éeficmncy of service
V’ the compensation awarded is exmssive.
–At:cn§§ding1y, we 110% that, no gound Whatever is made out –
intcrfexing with the order passed by the State
Commission allowing the appeal No.2459/ 2008 filed by the
V’
12
respondent herein and dismissing the expp:-f:al
petitioner Itteztzixrfippeai 205/’ 2009 daigd 7
pass the following order:
The writ petrifions are dgsmisseq; K,
Justice:
3d/Q %%%% 4' Iuddé. "«Véb__Hostj_~v_¥e§['Ne