By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The complaint in short is as follows.
1. The complainant is working as Deputy Quality assurance / quality control manager, Mitsubishi heavy industries in Port of Spain Trinidad. The first opposite party is the airport manager of Etihad Airways and second opposite party is the manager of Etihad Airways. The complainant approached the opposite parties to obtain a flight ticket to Port of Spain Trinidad. Since there is no direct flight was available from Calicut to Port of Spain the staff of Etihad advised the complainant to take connection flights with Airside transmit and as per the schedule of the opposite parties the complainant had purchased an Air ticket EY 219 dated on 21/01/2018 with a routing of CCJ-AUH (Kozhikode to Abudhabi), AUH to LHR (Abudhabi to London) LHR to BGI (London to Bridge Town) and BG I to POS (Bridge town to Port of Spain). Accordingly, it was assured that the complainant will be able to arrive at Trinidad on 23/01/2018.
2. The complainant produced all necessary documents without any fail and timely manner and on 22/01/2018 he boarded flight operated by Etihad Airways at 22.15 hours from Calicut International airport to Dubai after customs and emigration clearance. Later when the flight reached at Abu Dhabi, the Etihad staff denied Air side transit to the complainant stating that he cannot travel to LHR without London Visa. The passport of the complainant was also kept by the staff and the complainant was treated like a captive. The complainant approached the manager and staff of Etihad air ways citing the issue and the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. He had also informed the opposite parties on several occasions regarding the urgency to reach Trinidad on 23/01/2018. But they denied to travel as per the schedule provided by them. The Etihad Airways failed to provide either alternative arrangements or to continue the same schedule. The treatment towards the complainant from the opposite parties was very rude and subsequently he was sent back to India by swapping his ticket to London. The passport and the luggage were detained by the opposite parties without any authority and curtail all his personal rights. The opposite parties failed to provide proper care to the complainant as a passenger.
3. The complainant intimated the incident to the gust relation officer of the opposite parties. But there was no satisfactory explanation from the opposite parties. The complainant had paid Rs.1,11,000/- as booking charge of the ticket at the time of booking. But the said amount was not returned to the petitioner so far. The complainant alleges the opposite parties faiedl to provide proper service as promised by them and it is a great lapse on the side of the opposite parties which caused severe mental agony and prejudice to the complainant. The scheduled meeting of the complainant had to be cancelled and this has severely dented the good will and reputation of the complainant. The opposite parties are solely responsible for the insult caused to the complainant and high prejudice is caused to the complainant by this incident.
4. The complainant caused legal notices to the opposite parties demanding to return the amount paid by him and compensation for causing mental agony and other losses. Despite receipt of notice the opposite parties neither repaid any amount nor replied to the complainant. The complainant submitted that the complainant availed the service of the opposite parties not for any commercial purpose. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service as stipulated under the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties had perused all the relevant travel documents of the complainant including passport and had assured the complainant about a smooth journey. The complainant was never informed of any issues that could arise during transit. It was due to the assurance given by the opposite parties that the complainant purchased air tickets from the opposite parties. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties issued the ticket to the complainant suppressing possible issues that could arise, in order to get the business of a high value ticket. The complainant alleges deficiency of service on the side of opposite parties and submit that they are legally bound to refund the amount received from the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and also liable to compensate the complainant for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for the mental agony, inconveniences, loss of reputation, loss of time sustained by him due to the act of the opposite parties. The complainant also prays for the cost of Rs.80,000/-.
5. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and they entered appearance and filed version denying the entire averment and allegations contained in the complaint.
6. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had booked to travel from Kozhikode to London with the opposite party. The ticket to Port of Spain from London was on different carriers which were issued in separate tickets. The complainant wrongly stated that he booked his tickets with the opposite party but in fact he booked his tickets through a travel agent. Hence it was for the agent to advice the passenger if the passenger was unaware of the rules or about the document requirements, if the complainant was not aware should have asked or the agent should have pointed about the same to the complainant. The opposite parties submitted that they are an Airline who carrier’s passenger, airport to airport basis subject to possession of valid document by the passenger. The complainant could have taken flights through countries that may not have required a transit visa. The complainant had booked the tickets on his own accord and not under the advice or influence of the opposite parties. The complainant did not possess a transit visa that would enable him to transit that airport of the United Kingdom. The complainant has wrongfully stated that he had cleared customs at Dubai Airport as his itinerary did not have any stop at Dubai and the same should read as Abu Dhabi. The complainant was having a transit stop at Abu Dhabi and not at Dubai as wrongly stated in the complaint. At Abdu Dhabi when the complainant’s boarding pass was checked, the staff asked the complainant to produce the transit visa for disembarking / transiting at London airport. The emigrating authorities at Abu Dhabi strictly check travel documents of passengers using the TIMATIC system which is a part of the IATA, which shows that staff the documents which the passengers need to possess. The complainant did not have a transit visa with him when asked for it by the opposite party. The only documents complainant processed were his passport and work permit for Trinidad and Tobago. As the complainant did not possess the transit visa the document verification super visor, aviation security, did not allow the complainant to board the flight from Abu Dhabi to London. Thus, the complainant was sent back from Abdu Dhabi to Calicut and as denied boarding for the onward flight to London. The complainant was sent back to India by the opposite party using the ticket for the Abu Dhabi to London sector, which was re issued.
7. The opposite party submitted that the claim of the complainant to refund Rs.1, 11,000/- as the amount paid for booking the ticket cannot be allowed since the complainant has travelled and used the ticket from Calicut to Abu Dhabi and the ticket from Abu Dhabi to London was used and re issued for the sector Abu Dhabi to Calicut as he did not wish to buy a fresh ticket back to Calicut. The refund if any due to the complainant would have to be routed thorough the travel agent only as the ticket was purchased through the agent. The opposite party submitted that the conditions of carriage of the opposite party which is printed on the ticket and also available on the website of the opposite party which forms a contract between the passenger and airlines as envisaged in article 7.1.2.7. the opposite party submitted that the complainant was the cause of his own misery and as he did not possess transit visa for the UK as is the requirement for Indian Nationals, the legal notice was not replied to as the matter was treated as closed by the opposite party. The opposite party reiterate that the tickets of the complainant was never booked directly from Etihad but through the travel agent, thus the travel agent should have advised the complainant in respect of the requirement for UK transit visa. The opposite party denied that they defrauded the complainant to buying the tickets as falsely alleged. The choice to buy the ticket on whatever airline was that of the complainant and the opposite party have no role to play. The flight was chosen on the availability / economy and Easy connection to Port of Spain. The opposite party submitted that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and they are not bound to refund the cost of the ticket along with interest and compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for mental agony, inconvenience etc.
8. The complainant was to travel from Calicut to Port of Spain and in order to travel he required to find the most convenient rout which he was possible advised by his travel agent to buy, through two separate tickets. The first part of the journey was from Calicut to Abu Dhabi and onwards to London with the opposite party. The second ticket comprised of the complainants further travel from London to Port of Spain with other carriers. The complainant only had a work permit from Trinidad and Tobago and did not have a transit visa for the UK which was mandatory for Indian nationals transiting through the UK. The complainant was allowed to board from Calicut airport based on the work permit as he was only transiting through the UK but Abu Dhabi airport it was noticed that the work permit from Trinidad and Tobago did not exempt the complainant from the transit visa requirement for Indian Nationals transiting through the UK, and he was denied boarding from Abdu Dhabi to London and was sent back to Calicut from Abu Dhabi. The rules of the UK are very strict and any violation in bringing in passengers without proper visa and valid documents the carrier is liable to pay a fine and the passenger also faces the possibility of being reported back to his airport of boarding. It is submitted that as per article 14 of IATA general condition of carriage clearly state that the carrier is not responsible for the passenger’s travel document. Hence the submission of the opposite party is that the complainant is responsible for obtaining and holding all required travel documents and visa and for complaint with all applicable laws, regulation, orders demands and travel requirements of all countries to be flown from in to or through which the opposite party shall not be liable for the consequences to any passenger resulting from his or her failure to obtain such documents or visa or to complying with such loss, regulations, orders, demands requirements, rules or instructions. It is submitted by the opposite party that this principle has been upheld by Apex Court of our country as well as the National Commission through various judgment. Hence the submission is that the government of different countries have certain documentation requirements which have to be complied with. The passenger is duty bound to know what documents are required for his / her travels. Hence his prayer of the opposite party is that the complainant has not made a case of deficiency in service and the claim being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost to the opposite party.
9. The complainant and opposite parties filed documents and affidavits. The documents on the side complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A4. The documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B6. Ext. A1 is boarding pass dated 22/01/2018. Ext. A2 is copy of air ticket. Ext. A3 is copy of lawyer notice along with postal acknowledgment. Ext. A4 is copy of travel documents of the complainant. Ext. B1 is the copy of the ticket booked by the complainant with the opposite party Ext. B2 is copy of email from the document verification supervisor, aviation security of the opposite party. Ext. B3 is the print out of the UK border force rules available in the internet. Ext. B4 is copy of the off-loading report of the opposite party. Ext. B5 is copy of IATA general conditions of carriage of the international AIR transport association. Ext. B6 is conditions of carriage of the opposite party.
10. The complainant and opposite parties filed notice of argument, perused affidavit and documents.
The following points arise for consideration: -
1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Relief and cost
11. Point No.1 and 2
The complainant planned as a flight from Calicut to London Via Abu Dhabi and from London to Port of Spain. The complainant herein had boarded the flight from Calicut but was restrained at Abu Dhabi airport from the final leg of his travel as he did not possess the request transit visa. Due to the act of the opposite party No.1 complainant incurred a loss of Rs.1,11,000/-. The complainant claims compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
12. The case of complainant is that there is duty cast upon the airline service to inform the customer about the mandatory documents for the travel and it is submitted that the opposite party has not informed the complainant about the formalities.
13 The opposite party submitted that the air ticket was booked through an agent and the booking agent ought to have informed the complainant about the formalities. It is also submitted that it is the responsibility of the passenger to ensure that he has all necessary travel document and it is not the duty of the opposite party airlines. But they are acting only as a carrier of passengers from one destination to another and does not issue visas. The opposite party produced documents Ext. B1 to B6 to establish the contention of the responsibility of the passenger. The perusal documents Ext. B5 article 14 of IATA general conditions of carriage (passenger and baggage) and the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission produced by the opposite party in support of the contention of the opposite party to establish the responsibility of the passenger to ensure necessary travel documents. Even if the contention of the opposite party is admitted the case herein stands in a different footing. In this complaint the complainant booked two separate tickets to travel from Calicut to Port of Spain i.e., one being from Calicut to London via Abu Dhabi on the flight of the opposite party and the other being from London to Port of Spain via bridge town on different airlines namely virgin Atlantic and Caribbean Airlines. The opposite party allowed the complainant to board the flight at the Calicut airport. But at the time of check-in for the London flight at Abdu Dhabi it was noticed that the complainant did not possess a transit visa for UK which is an essential requirement for all Indian national transiting through UK. Hence the complainant was denied boarding at Abu Dhabi airport and was sent back to Calicut by the opposite party airlines. The opposite party submitted that they allowed the complainant to board the flight at Calicut airport to Abdu Dhabi on the basis of a valid work permit from Trinidad and Tobago since the complainant was transiting through Abu Dhabi. While arriving at Abdu Dhabi airport there was more stringent checks are performed through a TIMATIC system which is a part of IATA and connects worked wide immigration authorities to assist the airport staff to determine whether the passenger will be allowed entry/ exit in the host country. Only at that time it was noticed that the complainant did not possess a direct air side transit visa for the UK as per his itinerary and as he being an Indian nationalist and essential UK visa requirement to transit through London. The Commission is not accepting in the contention of the opposite party that only on arrival at Abu Dhabi airport it was noticed absence of proper travel documents on the side of complainant and the duty of the opposite party is simply act as a carrier of passengers from one destination to another. If the opposite party had properly verified the documents from the Calicut airport itself the gravity of inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant could have been reduced, so it can be seen that there is defective service from the side of opposite party in verifying the travel document of the complainant while permitting the complainant to board the flight at Calicut airport to Abu Dhabi. The responsibility of the opposite party do not rest carrying the complainant from Calicut to Abu Dhabi but it is the responsibility of the opposite party to take up to London as per the air ticket. The complainant alleges due to the defective service on the part of opposite party complainant was kept at the airport like captive and he was treated badly without providing proper care and consideration. The complainant also alleges the attitude of staff at the airport was very rude and they curtailed all his personal rights. But there is no any documentary evidence except the submission of the complainant to prove the same. But it is evident from the circumstances the complainant met with a bad situation at the airport Abu Dhabi and which was the result of the defective service on the side of opposite party and for that the opposite party is responsible to compensate the complainant. But the opposite party established the responsibility of the traveler in organizing traveling document, so it will not be the sole responsibility of the opposite party to provide compensation to the complainant. Considering the nature of defective service on the part of the opposite party we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for the refund of travelling expenses. Which the complainant claims which is Rs.1,11,000/- the opposite party contended that the complaint was travelled from Calicut to Abu Dhabi and due to absence of proper documents on the side of complaint he was taken back from Abu Dhabi to Calicut at the cost of opposite party itself. Hence the submission of the opposite party is that the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the flight ticket. But the fact is that if there was proper service and care on the part of the opposite party the complaint could have avoided the unnecessary exercise of traveling and could have arranged proper traveling documents and flight tickets without boarding the fight of opposite party. So we do not accept the contention of the opposite party that the complaint is not entitled the refund of flight ticket. Considering the nature of defective service on the part of opposite party and the latches on the part of complainant we are not inclined to allow compensation but we allow Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
15. In the light of above fact circumstances we allow this complaint partly as follows: -
1) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,11,000/- to the complainant as refund amount of travel expenses of the complainant.
2) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled interest for the above said amount @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Dated this 28th October day of, 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A4
Ext.A1: Boarding pass dated 22/01/2018.
Ext.A2: Copy of air ticket.
Ext A3: Copy of lawyer notice along with postal acknowledgment.
Ext A4: Copy of travel documents of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B6
Ext.B1: Copy of the ticket booked by the complainant with the opposite party
Ext.B2: Copy of email from the document verification supervisor, aviation security of the opposite party.
Ext.B3: Print out of the UK border force rules available on the internet.
Ext.B4: Copy of the off loading report of the opposite party.
Ext.B5: Copy of IATA general conditions of carriage of the international AIR transport association.
Ext.B6: Conditions of carriage of the opposite party.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
