PER:
Nidhi Verma, Member.
1 The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.
2 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 11 and 12 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the husband of the complainant is an officer in Merchant Navy and she decided to meet her husband in his ship. The complainant No.2 is a minor and the present complaint is filed through her mother who does not have any interest adverse to that of minor. The complainant purchased the tickets from the O.P No.1 and 2 from Amritsar to Singapore and paid $758 USD. (Rs. 50,000/-approx). The husband of the complainant is an officer in the Merchant Navy and usually remain on the ship which sails outside India. The complainant along with her minor son planned to join her husband on the ship which was sailing in Singapore at that time. As per the preliminary requirement, any person visiting his family member/relative on a ship, has to get Facsimile Transmission from the company whose ship is sailing in that country. So the complainant applied for the Facsimile Transmission to V. Ships Hansen Singapore Pvt Ltd at 10, Hoe Chiang Road #24-01, Keppel Towers, Singapore which was accordingly issued in favour of the complainant No.1 and 2. The complainant purchased Ticket No.8161722907774 and 8161722907773 from the O.P No.1 and 2 from Amritsar to Singapore via Kuala Lumpur on 1" January, 2017 and paid $758 USD. The complainant along with her son reached the Amritsar airport at 1500hrs i.e. 2.5 Hrs before the actual departure of the flight. The ground staff of the O.P. Nos.1 and 2 present at the Airport, checked her documents and told her that they cannot allow them to board the flight as they did not have proper documents for their travel and asked her to contact the Station Manager for further details. The station manager of O.P. No.1 and 2 also reiterates the same lines without assigning any reason. Lastly the complainant contacted her husband's company office and they told her that Supernumerary (Seafarer family) joining in Singapore, ICA letter and OK to board visa are the required valid documents which she was carrying along with her. The Station manager of OP. No.1 and 2 even had a conversation with her husband's company officials in Singapore and explained him everything about the Singapore Immigration Rules. Meanwhile again a confirmation regarding supernumerary joining in Singapore does not require any visa was sent by her husband's company which was again shown to the station manager of O.P No.1 and 2. It was clearly mentioned in OK to Board Visa that V-Ships company will be responsible for the maintenance and also indemnified the government of Singapore against any costs that might be incurred. But the officials of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 were not aware of these immigration rules and just wasted the time of the complainant. After lot of discussions and consultations with the staff of O.P. Nos.1 and 2, they issued the boarding passes after verifying all the documents of the complainant from their higher officers. The complainant went to the counters of O.P. No.3 and showed them their passport and other documents. As per the Immigration rules, the Immigration officer is duty bound to check the authenticity of the passports only. The officers of the O.P. No.3 checked and verified their passport. Again the Station Manager of the O.P Nos.1 and 2 came to the complainant and told her that they will not allow the complainant and her son to board the flight and asked her to return their boarding passes. The complainant asked for the reason of such decision but the Station Manager of the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 forcefully took away the boarding passes from the hands of the complainant. The complainant raised hue and cry but all in vain. The complainant even went to the officer of the O.P.No.3 and asked the reason of such decision but they told the complainant that as per the rules, she got all the documents to travel but they can't do anything till the Station Manager of O.P.No.1 and 2 gave her clearance and issued them boarding passes. But the Station manager of O.P. Nos.1 and 2 showed her adamant attitude and refused totally to allow the complainant to board the flight. The OP be directed to file the documents in respect of refusal/offloading. Due to lack of knowledge and non observance of rules by the Opposite Parties, the complainant missed her flight. She had suffered a lot of pain, mental agony, harassment and humiliation at the hands of the opposite parties. The complainant asked the station manager of OP Nos. 1 and 2 to refund her Air fare but she was told by the station manager of O.P. Nos.1 and 2 that as the flight has already departed so she will not get anything. After four days, on 5th January,2017 her husband's company, re-arranged their Air India flight from Chandigarh to Singapore via New Delhi. She was allowed to travel on Air India flight with the same travel documents which were ICA letter and OK to Board VISA. Later on the complainant wrote various emails to the Opposite Parties no.1 and 2 but did not get any satisfactorily reply. When the complainant felt helpless, she filed a complaint but the said complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide court order dated 4.8.2017 with permission to file a fresh complaint in appropriate Commission. The complainant has prayed the following reliefs may be granted to the complainant.
(a) The opposite party may be directed to make the payment of $758 USD being the Airfare charges alongwith interest on it @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment till realization.
(b) Compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- may be awarded to them on account of suffering mental pain, agony, harassment, inconvenience at their hands due to deficiency in service.
(c) Costs of the proceedings of Rs. 11,000/-
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interalia pleadings that the instant complaint has been filed with the ulterior and malafide intention and object to mislead and misrepresent this commission. The instant complaint otherwise is not maintainable on the strength of allegation made in the complaint against the opposite party and the same deserve dismissal. Airline Company has only duty to issue the boarding pass to its customers but next level for boarding is security Check In by Immigration department (central security Agency). There is no direct interference of Airlines Company with Immigration department. The Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 have to follow the Immigration rules and regulation for operating the Air planes. The complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the knowledge of this commission. Complainant is author of his own version, rather he has concocted a story of his own choice to get the undue benefits from the opposite party and to cause harm to reputation of opposite party in market. The complainant was not permitted to board the flight only on account of the fact that at the time of Security check-in (Central Government Security Agency) it is mandatory to show the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority and Seaman booklet or Visa and in the absence thereof the passenger cannot be permitted to travel. The complainant only carries the Facsimile Transmission letter issued by shipping company at that time but however, the OPs No. 1 and 2 issued the boarding pass to the complainant after taking the permission from higher officials of the company. No cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint against the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, as there is no deficiency on part of the opposite parties. The complainant is trying to get un-due advantage of his own wrongful facts. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have issued the boarding pass to the complainant but the immigration department did not allow the passenger to travel without the documents required Immigration & Checkpoints Authority and Seaman booklet or Visa. The complainant is estopped by his own acts conduct from filing the present complaint. The complainant was not having the visa/Seaman booklet and ICA letter on that day. Thereafter it was procured just to create evidence in her favour. The complainant has cooked up the false and baseless story just to get the undue benefit from the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. In the present case of the complainant, the complainant was not carrying with her Immigration & Checkpoints Authority letter & Seaman booklet/Visa issued. On 02.01.2017 when the passengers approached the replying OP for issuing the boarding pass and ground staff of the replying OPs demanded the valid documents i.e. Immigration & checkpoint Authority, passport and visa. At that time, the complainant only carries the Facsimile Transmission letter issued by shipping company and passport. Accordingly, ground staff after consultation with station master of replying OP S. Dilbagh Singh issued the boarding pass to the complainant. On the request of passenger, Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 issued the boarding passes and baggage also sent to BMA (Baggage Make Up Area) of flight. Accordingly, the complainant went to the Security Check In Counter of the opposite party No. 3 of Govt. Of India and handover the boarding passes to them. They (OP no.3) also demanded the ICA & Seaman Booklet or Visa from the complainant. At that time also the complainant was unable to satisfy to OP No. 3. They did not allow the complainant to board the flight and returned the passport to the complainant and boarding passes to the replying OP No. 1 & 2 as per rules and regulation of Airport Authority of India. The complainant was not carrying ICA letter with her on that day however, she was carrying only Facsimile Transmission letter with her. It is denied that the complainant travelling with same documents from Chandigarh airport to Singapore via New Delhi. The complainant placed on record letter bearing ref. no. VS_CHD/17 Feb/001/2017 dated 05 jan 2017 and another letter OK to board issued by V. ships agency dated 04.01.2017 with this complaint, just procured these documents to create the evidence in her favour. The Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
4 The Opposite Party No. 3 has filed written version that the complainant has not came this Commission with clean hands and has misrepresented the material facts before this Commission. The present is filed by the complainant pleading that the opposite party No 3 is guilty of negligence, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice as well as gross negligence. These allegations are false and frivolous. The present complaint is bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of necessary parties as the Bureau of Immigration is not a profit making agency. Its main object to facilitate passengers after checking their documents, if the documents are found to be genuine Immigration clears passenger. This commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the case against the opposite No. 3 is not fallen within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. This matter is between the complainant and opposite parties No 1 and 2 and opposite party No. 3 wrongly dragged in this matter for nothing. The complainant never approached the opposite party No. 3 at any time she has no clearing documents from Airline Station Manager and without clearing documents the question of approaching to Immigration officer doesn't arise. The allegations leveled against opposite party is totally false, frivolous and baseless. The Bureau of Immigration is well versed with all the Immigration Rules. There is uniformity in Immigration Rules at all the Airport in India. To say that different Immigration Rules followed at different Airports is false, frivolous and baseless, without any ground, fictitious and fabricated. The opposite party No. 3 does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, the complaint is not legally valid against the opposite party No. 3 and the opposite party No. 3 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
5 To prove his case, the Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, copy of order dated 4.8.2017 Ex. C-2, copy of letter dated 1.1.2017 Ex. C-3, copy of the facsimile transmission Ex. C-4, coy of air ticket Ex. C-5, C-6, affidavit of Tanu Saini Ex.C-7, alongwith documents Ex. C-8 to Ex. C-27 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Dilbag Singh Station Master Ex. OP1,2/1, , authority letter Ex. OP1,2/2, copy of the boarding pass Ex. OP1,2/3 and OP1/2/4 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Manjit Singh FRRO, Bureau of Immigration Ex. OP3/1 and closed the evidence.
6 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7 Present complaint has been filed by Tanu Saini , she purchased the ticket No. 8161722907774 and 8161722907773 from the OP No1 and 2 from Amritsar to Singapore on 1st January,2017 and paid $758USD. The complainant along with her minor son planned to join her husband on the ship which was sailing in Singapore at that time. As per Preliminary requirement, any person visiting his family members on a ship, has to get Facsimile Transmission from the company whose ship is sailing in that country. The ground staff of the opposite party, checked her documents and told her that they cannot allow them to board the flight as they did not have proper documents for their travel and asked her to contact the Station Manager for further details. The Station Manager of OP 1and 2 also reiterates the same lines without assigning any reason. Lastly the complainant contacted her husband’s company office and they told her and the Station Manager that, ICA Letter and OK to board visa are required which she was carrying along with her , further Supernumerary (seafarer family ) joining in Singapore does not required any visa , OK to board and V Ship company will be responsible for the maintenance and also indemnified the government of Singapore against any costs that might be incurred. After lots of discussion the staff of OP No 1 and 2 issued us the boarding passes after verifying all the documents of the complainant. The complainant went to the counters of OP No 3, checked and verified their passports. Again the station Manager of the OP No. 1 and 2 came to the complainant and told her that they will not allow them to board the flight and forcefully took away the boarding passes from them. Due to lack of knowledge and non observance of rules by the Ops the complainant missed her flight and further OP No. 1 and 2 refused to refund the Air Fare. Later on dated 5 Jan 2017, the complainant and her son travelled by Air India flight from Chandigarh to Singapore with same documents which were ICA Letter and OK to Board Visa. OP No. 3 stated in their written version that the Bureau of Immigration is not a profit making agency, it’s main object to facilitate passengers after checking their documents, if the documents are found to be genuine Immigration clears the passenger. Moreover it is the duty of the airline to issue the boarding pass and they can take it back if found any doubt about the passenger, and the Bureau of Immigration is not concerned with the functioning of airlines. This matter is between the complainant and OP 1 and 2, and OP No. 3 wrongly dragged in this matter for nothing. OP No 2 and 3 stated in their written version that the complainant was not permitted to board the flight only on account of the fact that at the time of the Security Check In, It is mandatory to show the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and Seman booklet or Visa and in the absence thereof the passenger cannot be permitted to travel. The complainant only carries the Facsimile Transmission letter issued by shipping company at the time but however the opposite party issued the boarding pass to the complainant after taking the permission from higher official of the company but the Immigration department did not allow the passenger to travel without the documents required. Further, the complainant was not carrying ICA Letter with her on that day however, she was carrying only Facsimile Transmission letter with her. It is denied that the complainant travelling with same documents from Chandigarh to Singapore. In the view of above discussion and documents placed on record, the complainant provided the evidence to prove her complaint :-
- Ex .C3 – Immigration & Checkpoint Authority letter issued on dated 01/01/2017 , which clearly stated there names. Further OP 1&2 stated that the complainant was not permitted to board the flight in absence of ICA Letter but same is submitted as evidence by the complainant which she had before the date of her flight.
- Ex.C4 – Facsimile Transmission , issued on dated 30.12. 2016 , which again stated there names.
- Ex. C 15 – E- mail sent by V.Ship Agency on dated 2nd Jan 2017 stated that “ the complainant doesn’t required Singapore visa to travel to Singapore and the ICA Letter which we provide is sufficient for them to enter Singapore.”
8 We are of the considered view that , as OP No 1&2 stated that they issued the boarding pass to the complainant and she had only carries the Facsimile Transmission Letter but Immigration department did not allow the complainant to board the flight (as ICA & Seasame booklet she don’t have) . But as per Affidavit submitted by Manjit Singh FRRO , Bureau of Immigration Amritsar Op3 stated that “ the petitioner along with her son intended to go to Singapore from Amritsar ,on the strength of passport along with ICA Letter and Ok to board visa but was denied exit by the Malindo Airlines on ground of insufficient travel documents .” The only defence of the OP No 1&2 is that they issued the boarding pass to the complainant and her son (Ex OP 1-2/3 & OP 1-2/4) but same is admitted by the complainant too in her plea and as per complaint OP first issued the boarding pass after lot of discussion and consultation but later forcefully took away the same when the complainant went to the counter of OP No 3. Hence , the OP No 1 &2 cannot put the all blame on OP3 just by submitting the Boarding pass as an evidence that they issued the same to the complainant. Further, the OP 3 is not a profit making agency, it’s main object is to facilitate passengers if documents are found to be genuine. Thus , due to lack of knowledge and non observance of rules by the OP 1&2 ,the complainant missed her flight. Further, on dated 5th Jan 2017 , the complainant with same documents travelled to Singapore on Air India flight. Hence, the aforesaid act on the part of the OP 1&2 amounts to a great negligence , carelessness , deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant has suffered a lot .
9 In view of above discussion we allow the complaint with costs and the OP No. 1 & 2 are directed to refund the payment of $758 USD being the Airfare charged. The complainants have been harassed by the opposite parties No. 1, 2 unnecessarily for a long time. The complainants are also entitled to 20,000/-( Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 10,000/-/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.
Announced in Open Commission
20.9.2022
