NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
Consumer Complaint No. 67 of 2008
J. K. Mittal & Ors	Complainants
Vs.
Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. & Ors.	Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH   PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA MEMBER
For the Complainant IN PERSON
For the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 Mr. M. N. Krishnamani, Sr Advocate Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Advocate Ms. Nupur Mukherjee, Advocate
Dated the 14^thAugust, 2008
ORDER

Learned Senior Counsel Mr. M. N. Krishnamani appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that as this complaint is not maintainable, the interim order which was passed yesterday be modified. He submits that complaint is not maintainable, because, even if the complainant No. 1 might have suffered any loss, for that loss the pecuniary jurisdiction would be with the District Forum and the claim of Rs. 5 crore is totally exaggerated.

This contention would be required to be dealt with at the time of final hearing because in case of unfair trade practice and punitive damages, it cannot be prima facie said that the claim is exaggerated.

He further submits that Complaint no. 2 which is an NGO – Consumer Voice - ought not to have joined as array of parties at the request of Complainant no. 1 and in case the complaint is not maintainable unless all members of the Complainant no. 2 are affected by such unfair trade practice.

This contention appears to be without any substance, because, Consumer Organizations are required to take such cause for preventing unfair trade practices and under the Consumer Protection Act they are entitled to file such complaint.

He further submits that even the ticket which is being issued to the complainant mentions that it was operated by Air Deccan. That contention, prima facie is without any substance, because, the ticket specifically states that flight is Kingfisher Airlines IT 4608.

The learned Counsel submits that such arrangement is only till the final merger of Air Deccan with Kingfisher Airlines takes place.

Considering the aforesaid submissions, in our view the order passed by this Commission yesterday does not call for any review or modification.

………………………..

[ M. B. Shah, J ]

President

………………………..

[ Rajyalakshmi Rao ]

Member

………………………

[ Anupam Dasgupta ]

Member

Satish – 07

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
Consumer Complaint No. 67 of 2008
J. K. Mittal & Ors	Complainant
Vs.
Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. & Ors.	Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH   PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA MEMBER
For the Complainant NEMO
For the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 Ms. Nupur Mukherjee, Advocate
Dated the 13^thAugust, 2008
ORDER

It is the case of complainant no.1, Mr. J. K. Mittal that he is a practising advocate at Delhi and a Member of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court Bar Associations and also a qualified Chartered Accountant as well as Company Secretary.

Through his Visa Credit Card he booked air tickets from Delhi to Bhubneshwar and back on 8^th March, 2008. These tickets were purchased on the Internet from the Kingfisher Airlines website. An amount of Rs.4800/- was charged for the outward flight No. IT 4608 and the same amount for the return flight No. IT 4677.

When he went to the Delhi Airport, he was asked to travel instead by an Air Deccan flight. When he enquired at the counter of the Kingfisher Airlines, he was told that there was no flight of the Kingfisher Airlines, operating from Delhi to Bhubneshwar on the said date. He was also asked to go to the other departure terminal, because the Air Deccan flight operated from the latter. While he paid Rs.4800/- for the Kingfisher Airlines (one-way) ticket, the Air Deccan flight ticket was for only Rs.2500/-. In his complaint, he contended that the trade practice adopted by OP No. 1 (Kingfisher Airlines) was unfair and they should be prevented from indulging in such practice. Further OP No. 1 and 2 should be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 crore by way of punitive damages which may be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund and / or Legal Aid Fund constituted by this Commission.

Similar was the experience of Mr Dharmesh Misra, Advocate, a resident of 38, 2^nd Floor Sadhana Enclave, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi – 110 017 who is present today before this Commission. He submits that after purchasing a Kingfisher Airlines ticket from Indore to Delhi for 7^th August, 2008, he was asked to travel by Air Deccan flight on that day. He further states that there was no Kingfisher Airlines flight on the said date from Indore to Delhi.

In this view of the matter, till further orders, OP No. 1 – Kingfisher Airlines – is directed not to indulge in such unfair trade practice. A copy of this order be also sent to the Respondent No. 3 - Director General of Civil Aviation, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi for appropriate action.

With regard to compensation, we would pass appropriate orders after further hearing to the learned Counsel for the parties.

Stand over to 14^th August, 2008.

………………………..

[ M. B. Shah, J ]

President

………………………..

[ Rajyalakshmi Rao ]

Member

………………………

[ Anupam Dasgupta ]

Member

Satish – 07