DIRECTOR (RESEARCH), MRTP COMMISSION vs Indian Airlines Ltd.

A complaint was made by one Shri Vinay Sharma stating that the ticket issued by the Indian Airlines for his return journey from Bangalore to Delhi was stolen or lost and even though he lodged an FIR, the Indian Airlines refused to issue a duplicate ticket on the ground that its rules did not permit issuance of a duplicate ticket or refund against the lost ticket. The Director (Research) was asked to investigate into the complaint and submit his Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR). The Director (Research) accordingly, submitted his PIR after investigation and recommended institution of an enquiry against the respondent, the Indian Airlines Ltd. for restrictive trade practices. A Notice of Enquiry was accordingly issued to the respondent.

THE respondent in its reply has stated that on the jacket of the ticket it is clearly mentioned that no refund is permissible against the lost ticket. It has been further stated that this condition forms a part of the contract of carriage and is binding on the parties. It has been further clarified that approximately 90 lacs tickets are issued by the respondent every year and according to the rules a ticket can be returned and refund can be asked for, it can also be re-routed and though it is not transferable, it is difficult to check the identity of each and every passenger and it is for these reasons that a specific condition has been incorporated in the contract of carriage that no refund will be permitted against the lost ticket. In support of its above contention in the reply, the respondent has cited the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharathi Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express, II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC)=JT 1996 (6) SC 254, stating that it is purely a contractual matter and does not amount to a restrictive or unfair trade practice. On completion of pleadings, following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent has indulged in or is indulging in the restrictive trade practices as alleged in the Notice of Enquiry ? (2) Whether the alleged restrictive trade practices are not prejudicial to public interest ?

Both the Director (Research) as well as the respondent have filed their respective affidavit of evidence and counter affidavit of evidence. We have heard both the Advocates for the Director (Research) as well as the respondent. The case of the respondent is that in the circulation letter dated 26th July, 1994 pertaining to Cancellation and Refund Rules, it has been clearly stipulated in Rule 5 that no refund /issuance of duplicate ticket would be made against the lost ticket and that carriage of passengers is governed by the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, by virtue of which a carrier is required to issue a ticket for the carriage of passengers and loss of the passenger ticket does not affect the validity of the contract of carriage which shall be subject to the rules framed under the Act. It has been further stated that these rules have been framed under the provisions of Section 45(2)(e) and (g) of the Air Corporations Act, 1953. The submission of the learned Advocate for the respondent before us was that the charge of restrictive trade practice by and on behalf of the respondent cannot be sustained as the rule with regard to non-issuance and non-refund against the lost ticket is statutory in nature and accordingly, non-issuance of duplicate ticket and non-refund against the lost ticket is expressly authorised by law and, therefore, does not constitute a restrictive trade practice and the case of the respondent is covered by Section 33(3) of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief). Even otherwise,-so ran his submission, the charge of the restrictive trade practice could not be substantiated in this case as the complainant had been issued a complimentary ticket by the respondent.

THESE facts have not been controverted by the Director (Research). In fact, these facts which were highlighted by the respondent in its reply to the probe letter issued by the Director (Research), have been mentioned in the PIR. Thus keeping in view the statutory nature of the rules and the practical difficulties explained by the respondent in the reply that about 90 lacs tickets are issued every year and that the facility of re-routing and cancellation is available to the passengers and it is difficult to check the identity of the ticket holders, this condition of non-issuance of duplicate ticket or non-refund against a lost ticket incorporated in the jacket of the ticket cannot be construed to be a restrictive trade practice. Moreover, as pointed out by the respondent in its reply, it is a contract between the passengers and the respondent, Indian Airlines and is binding on both the parties. The respondent has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharathi Knitting Comany v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. (supra), in support of its above contention. In view the fact that these rules are statutory in nature and also the fact that it is a restriction expressly authorised by law and falls under Section 33(3) of the Act, it cannot be said to be prejudicial to the public interest. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that the charge of restrictive trade practices by and on behalf of the respondent has not been substantiated. Even in the PIR it has not been stated much less proved as to how the aforesaid practice of non-refund and not issuance of a duplicate ticket against a lost ticket is prejudicial to the public interest. Therefore, the Notice of Enquiry deserves to be and is hereby discharged with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. NOE discharged.