PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint for deficiency in service rendered by the Opposite Parties and unfair trade practice used by the Opposite Party by misguiding the Complainant as a result of which the Complainant was deported from London to Mumbai.
2) The Opposite Party No.1 is the International Airline, Opposite Party No.2 is the Registered Agent and Opposite Party No.3 is also the International Airline. The Complainant has stated that he had booked tickets from London Heathrow to Madrid and from Barcelona to Landon Heathrow through Opposite Party No.2. The confirmed reservation for the Complainant was done for outbound journey on 16/09/2006 from Mumbai to London on Jet Airways flight 9 W 120 and for inbound journey on 01/10/2006 on the same airline from London to Mumbai. Tickets on Jet Airways were free tickets given to the Complainant as a frequent flyer.
3) Confirmed reservation for the Complainant in Opposite Party No.1’s aeroplain was done for outbound journey on 16/09/2006 on flight BA 458 from London to Madrid, Spain and inbound journey on 1st Oct., 2006, from Barcelona to London on flight BA477.
4) At the time of outbound journey, Jet Airways (Opposite Party No.3) transferred baggage to British Airways at London, for the journey from London to Madrid.
5) The Complainant knowing fully well that there would be ample time in London, he had taken precaution to apply for a Visa for U.K. The Complainant states that he has been granted a valid U.K. visa i.e. Direct Airside Transit Visa for the sake of brevity (DATV).
6) The Complainant further stated that on 16/09/2006, the baggage was transferred from Jet Airways to British Airways automatically. The Complainant spent about 2 hours at London Heathrow air port. The Complainant further stated that he merely crossed the terminal of Jet Airways to the terminal of British Airways. The baggage was checked in by Jet airways. However, on inbound journey from Barcelona to Mumbai Opposite Party No.1, did not allow automatic check in of baggage. In aviation parlance, it is called as through check in baggage. Thus, Opposite Party No.1 did not allow through check in baggage.
7) The Complainant has explained that transfer of luggage is a mere change of the luggage tag through bar code. The Opposite Party treated the Complainant as a terminating passenger. Terminating passenger is a person who has the required permission and visa to enter into the country. When the Complainant went to counter of Opposite Party No.1, he was told by the staff of the Opposite Party No.1 to claim his luggage at London Heathrow and recheck in with Jet Airways at London. The staff at the counter also checked the U.K. DAT – Visa and told that he would not face any problem at London Heathrow to reclaim his luggage and he can go back to Jet Airways to check in.
8) The Complainant further stated that he had to pass the U.K. immigration to reclaim the baggage. At immigration, the Officers asked the Complainant to wait and thereafter he was detained for 10 hours at London Heathrow airport in a separate room and was interrogated at length for over 8 hrs. the mobile phone, passport, visa and other allied documents were confiscated by this immigration officer and the Complainant was treated as an illegal entrant. He was also finger printed and photographed on the ground that no valid visa was produced and there was no reasonable excuse for the entry to the United Kingdom.
9) The Complainant further submitted that, he had no intention to enter in to the country but was coerced to do so to collect the baggage. To prove this point, the Complainant had a confirmed return ticket to India on Jet Airways of the same day from London Heathrow to Mumbai (India).
10) The Complainant further stated that an order was passed under immigration Act, 1971 (order 1993) to remove the Complainant from U.K. to India as he held no prior entry clearance.
11) The Complainant further stated that, because of the negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.1, Complainant was escorted in a caged vehicle. At Mumbai Airport the Complainant was again detained for 10 hours and interrogated for 8 hrs. After that the Complainant was allowed to go. This caused mental trauma and agony to the Complainant. The Complainant finally prayed for the compensation of Rs.15,11,183/- for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties by deliberately misguiding the Complainant leading to his deportation and 18 % interest on this amount from date of deportation i.e. from 02/10/06 till the payment.
12) The Complainant has attached the following documents alongwith the complaint i.e. (1) tickets bearing Reservation No.ZND5J (2) Mail classic dtd.27/10/07 from Complainant (3) passport of the Complainant IISADO E08 795722. VISAUR680753G.DAT (4) Boarding pass, (5) copy of notice to the detainee (6) letter of the Complainant to Opposite Party No.1 (7) mail of Opposite Party No.1 to Complainant (9) transcribed versions, etc.
The complaint was admitted and the notices were served on the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through its advocate, Opposite Party No.2 filed a letter clarifying that it was only a facilitator of the tickets from London to Madrid and from Barcelona to London. Opposite Party No.1 filed its written statement wherein it has been stated that there is no cause of action, the Forum has no jurisdiction, as the alleged events have taken place outside India. It is also stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party also vehemently denied that it misguided that Complainant. It is not responsible for the deportation of the Complainant. It has been pointed out by the Opposite Party No.1 that Complainant has averred in his complaint in para no.6 that Opposite Party No.2 and 3 are the necessary parties and no sum of money is sought against them. While in the same complaint, para no.8, the Complainant accuses each Opposite Parties of gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which compensation is sought by the Complainant.
13) The Opposite Party No.1 also vehemently stated that it is the responsibility of the Complainant to comply with all visa requirements and to obtain appropriate visa. Opposite Party No.1 has further clarified that it was not legally and contractually obliged to through check the baggage of the Complainant automatically from Barcelona to Mumbai as the Opposite Party No.1 does not have any agreement for the transfer of baggage with Jet Airways. It further accepted that, Opposite Party No.1 was responsible for the Complainant and his baggage only from Barcelona to London as he was having a British Airways Ticket for this journey. The Opposite Party also denied that any staff of Opposite Party assured the Complainant that he would not face any problem at London’s Heathrow Airport when he would go to reclaim his baggage and check it in with Jet Airways.
14) It was again reiterated by the Opposite Party that it is the responsibility of the Complainant to see that he had a compatible visa to suit the purpose of his travel.
15) Opposite Party has denied that the complainant was coerced by the Opposite Party No.1 staff to collect the baggage.
16) Finally it was averred by the Opposite Party that there is no legal basis for the claims of the Complainant. The claims are not supported by any documentary evidence and the complaint be dismissed with maximum cost.
17) The Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party No.1 wherein he reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and denied the averments in the written statement of the Opposite Party No.1.
18) Mr.Vikram Ramchand, Managing Director of Opposite Party No.2 X PLORZ.COM submitted his affidavit of evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and he stated that “Opposite Party No.2 was merely facilitators of the tickets from Landon to Madrid and Barcelona to London for the Complainant.
19) Opposite Party No.3 has submitted its preliminary objection to dismiss the case on the ground that there is no specific allegations against Opposite Party No.3, no relief is prayed against it. The Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 replied to this application. Order was passed by the Forum that these issues would be considered at the time of final judgement.
20) Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 filed their written arguments wherein they reiterated the facts stated in their complaint, rejoinder and written statement respectively.
21) We heard the Ld.Advocate for the Complainant and Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 alongwith Opposite Party No.2. We also perused the above stated documents and documents attached with the complaint. Our findings are as follows –
22) The Complainant has bought Air tickets from Mumbai to London and from London to Madrid on 16/09/06 and from Barcelona to London and from London to Mumbai on 01/10/06. This journey was to be performed through two Airlines i.e. from Mumbai to London by Jet Airways (Opposite Party No.3) on 16/09/06 and from London to Mumbai on 01/10/06. Similarly by British Airways (Opposite Party No.1) journey was to be performed from London to Madrid on 16/09/06 and from Barcelona to London on 01/10/06. Two airlines were involved in this travelling. The Complainant reached at his destination at Madrid on 16/09/06 without any problem. The problem cropped up on return journey from Barcelona to London and specifically on 01/10/06 at London Heathrow Airport. The baggage of the complainant was in Opposite Party No.1’s aeroplain and it was to be checked in Jet Airways at London. There was no agreement between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.3 for this transfer of baggage. There was no contractual or legal obligation on Opposite Party No.1 to transfer the luggage to Opposite Party No.3 as it is admitted by the Complainant himself. Therefore, it was the Complainant who should have tried to do something in this connection. The Complainant was having only a D.A.T. Visa i.e. transit visa from British Airways Terminal to Jet Airways Terminal. He was not having a visa to enter into the country i.e. in United Kingdom. According to the Complainant, he was advised by the ground staff of the Opposite Party No.1 that this Visa was sufficient for through check in. However, Opposite Party No.1 vehemently denied that its staff had advised the Complainant in this connection and clarified that it is the responsibility of the Complainant to have a suitable visa of the country where he had visited.
23) The Complainant in his complaint also stated in para 17, “the Complainant knowing fully well that there would be a period of time in London, he had taken the precaution of applying for a visa from United Kingdom. The Complainant was granted a valid U.K. Direct Airside transit visa (D.A.T.V.). The Complainant further averred that this D.A.T. Visa was recommended by Opposite Party No.1 and British High Commission after seeing the confirmed tickets. At the same time the Opposite Party No.1 have vehemently denied such recommendation.
24) Basically the British High Commission is the issuing authority of the Visa. Certainly it is the responsibility of the passenger to obtain a proper visa of a particular country to which he visits. The passenger should confirm from the issuing authority as to what type of visa is required for the purpose. Opposite Party No.1 is not an issuing authority of a visa. Complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that it was the liability of Opposite Party No.1 to guide in respect of type of visa required. The visa issuing authority i.e. the U.K. High Commission must have guided in this respect but from the complaint itself it appears that the Complainant instead of making enquiries with the right authority relied on the Opposite Party No.1 who is not a proper authority.
25) As per para 20 of the complaint, the Complainant expected that the Opposite Party No.1 should have allowed an automatic check in of baggage from Barcelona to Mumbai but Opposite Party No.1 did not allow this through check in of baggage. The Complainant was having valid air ticket of Opposite Party No.1 from Barcelona to London only. Therefore, the expectation of the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 should have allowed through check in of baggage to Mumbai is not justifiable. It is not legal nor contractual obligation of the Opposite Party No.1 to do so.
26) The averments of the Complainant in para no.22, that he was told by the staff of the Opposite Party No.1 to claim his luggage at London and recheck it in with Jet Airways, the staff of Opposite Party No.1 also checked the D.A.T.V. and told the Complainant that he would not face any problem at London to reclaim his luggage and can go back to Jet Airways for check in, are only an oral averment, not supported by any documentary or any other cognate evidence. The C.D. and transcribed version of the conversation between the Complainant and Opposite Party’s staff as claimed by the Complainant is also not a full proof evidence.
27) As stated by the Complainant himself in the complaint that he is a frequent flyer, he should have been aware of the type of visa required to collect the baggages and transfer it to other Airline’s Aeroplain (Jet Airways at London Heathrow).
28) The Complainant was having a valid D.A.T. Visa i.e. a Transit Visa allowing him to go from one terminus to another. But from the complaint itself it transpires that he went through the immigration counter where he was checked by the Immigration Officers at London Heathrow. He was accosted by them and an action was taken under immigration Act by the immigration Authority.
29) In view of the above discussion it is clear that the Complainant has not proved that there was a deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant has averred in the complaint itself that the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 are the only necessary parties. Even looking into the fact of the case, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 & 3 also. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaint does not have any merit and it deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, we pass the following order -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.286/2007 is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
