By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

1.The complaint in short is as follows: -

                    The complainant is the holder of Indian passport No. T1989825 issued on

04/03/2019 by the Regional Passport Office, Kerala. Earlier, the complainant was holder of Indian Passport No. R8334319, which stands cancelled by the passport authority on 20/02/2019. The date of birth of the complainant was mistakenly entered in his second passport.  The complainant is a driver by profession and was working in KSA for the last 20 years.  His visa was stamped on his second passport, but because of the difference in his name and date of birth, complainant approached the Passport Authority through the proper channel.  Thus, the authority levied fine of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant and issued the new passport with his correct name and date of birth after cancelling his old passport. 

2.     The complainant, while so booked his flight ticket in the first opposite party Airlines for travelling from Calicut to Jeddah on 14/04/2019.  Complainant’s ticket was from Calicut to Bahrain in first opposite party’s flight No. GF261 and from Bahrain to Riyadh in Flight No. GF163 on the same date with e-ticket No. 0723477811848.   As per re-entry Visa, his last date for reporting at Riyadh was on 15/04/2019.

3.      As per the above ticket, complainant has reached at Calicut International Airport on 14/04/2019 at about 2.00 AM and he approached the Airlines counter of first opposite party for boarding pass.   At that time the third opposite party, the staff of first opposite party attended the complainant and took both his original passports and air tickets.  The third opposite party then informed the complainant that he is not entitled to travel abroad as there is difference in his name entered in the passports.  Thus, the complainant informed the third opposite party that it is a matter to be decided by the Authority concerned and requested to issue boarding pass.  But the third opposite party has taken the complainant’s passports and air tickets and left the place without giving any reply.  Then the complainant approached the manager, Calicut International Airport and preferred a complaint before him.   Based on the same, the Airport manager asked the third opposite party to attend him, but he reached the office only by 6 AM on the same day,  by that time, the flight of the complainant has taken off.  Thereafter the third opposite party returned the complainant’s passports and Air tickets through the Airport manager and the matter was recorded by him on the back side of complainant’s complaint. As a result of this incident, the complainant could not report Riyadh on 15/04/2019 as scheduled and thus the complainant lost his only job at abroad. 

4.      The complainant is the sole breadwinner of his family which includes his unemployed wife, three school going children and a mentally retard brother.  For a period of more than 20 years, complainant was working abroad as driver and he was drawing a monthly salary as equal to Indian money of Rs. 50,000/-. The salary, the complainant drawn so abroad was the only source of income for him and his family.  Complainant has attained 51 years only and he could have been do abroad the same job as well for a minimum of 15 years more with gradual increase in his income.  The complainant was enjoying the benefit of goodwill, he acquired in his job including several kinds of allowances and he would have been entitled to retirement benefits when he exits from his job abroad.  Though the complainant has got another job abroad by renewing his driver visa as a result of his repeated request   to all his relationship abroad, his losses due to losing the earlier permanent job is irreparable to him.  The complainant spent huge amount to get new driver visa.  The complainant further submits that, he spent money to get his travel ticket from opposite party’s company. 

5.       The submission of the complainant is that, he lost his job at abroad only because of the wrongful restraining made by opposite party’s staff mentioned above   without any legally justifiable reason.  The complainant was holding the entire valid travel documents, which is sufficient to travel abroad and the same he made convince the third opposite party in time also. But due to the illegal and unauthorised act of the third opposite party, the complainant could not travel as he planned. The complainant alleges the act of the third opposite party amounts grave deficiency in service, which ought to have been provided by the first opposite party in time to the complainant, being the first opposite party’s customer.  The act of the opposite parties is against the existing rules and Regulations in connection with the airline services.  The reason stated by the third opposite party to refuse boarding pass to the complainant is, name of complainant in his old passport is different from his new passport.  But it is submitted that though the complainant’s old pass port vide No. R8334319 has been cancelled by the Passport authority has categorically stated that visa if any remaining based on the cancelled passport is valid and this fact is revealed from the cancellation seal affixed in the old passport on 20/02/2019 by Passport officer, Kozhikode.  Hence the submission of complainant is, that the complainant’s re-entry visa based on the old passport is a document valid to travel abroad and the reason stated by the third opposite party is not at all aground to denial a passenger from entering or to refuse boarding pass to complainant.  The refusal of boarding pass to the complainant is an arbitrary act from the side of third opposite party.

6.       The complainant submitted the deliberated inaction as well as wrongful action from the side of the third opposite party as mentioned has resulted huge financial loss to complainant.  The complainant has submitted that, he suffered a loss of Rs. 24,000/-, the ticket fair as he could not travel abroad with the ticket, he purchased from the first opposite party.  The complainant further submits that, he suffered mental agony due to the harassment made by opposite party’s staff at a public place like Airport treating him that he made attempt to travel abroad with fake document. Therefore, the complainant prays for the refund of ticket fair Rs. 24,000/- and prays compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-  on account of deficiency of services from the side of third opposite party and thereby caused mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant.

7.   The complainant had issued lawyer notice demanding compensation on 03/05/2019, but the opposite party sent reply on 07/06/2019 with unsustainable grounds.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for the appropriate redressal of grievance.

8.        On admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties and on receipt of notice, the opposite parties filed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. 

9.     The opposite parties admitted the contention of the complainant that, he booked for travelling from Calicut to Riyadh via Bahrain on 14/04/2019 in Gulf Air Flights GF0261 and GF0163 and that the complainant reported the Airport for travel duly.  But the ground handing staff at the Airport counter, Calicut in bonafide discharge of their duty, upon verification of the travel documents of complainant found that the name and date of birth of the passenger as mentioned in his passport and in the Visa held by him issued by the authorities of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are discrepant.  The name of complainant on the new passport was different to that stated on his Visa issued by the KSA authorities, which constituted sufficient grounds for denial of boarding on the flight.  The complainant presented both passports and the re-entry visa to the check-in-desk at Calicut Airport on 14/04/2019.  He was advised by Gulf Air check-in-staff that they were unable to issue him boarding pass due to the apparent discrepancy in the name and the date of birth between the new passport and the re-entry visa.

10.     The opposite party submitted that in view of complainant’s insistence, Gulf Air’s Airport Manager then contacted the Saudi Airport Authorities who confirmed that the complainant should not been allowed to travel due to improper documents, which fact was informed to the complainant accordingly.   The submission of the opposite party is that, if the complainant was permitted to board the flight in spite of the above advice, he would have certainly deported by the Saudi Authorities in the light of the above facts.  The submission of the opposite party is that it was for the complainant to change his name and date of birth in his visa in terms of the entries in the new passport by liaising with the KSA Authorities, which was not complied by the complainant. 

11.      The opposite party contented that it is the duty and responsibility of Gulf Air, being an International Airline bound by international norms and law, to refuse carriage to a passenger who does not have and hold valid travel documents.   It is further reiterated that in the event of their permitting travel of such passenger, the opposite parties would be exposed to penal and fiscal consequences as per the law of the country of destination and the passenger would have been deported by the entry.  The opposite party’s conditions of carriage also provide that they may, in the reasonable exercise of their discretion, refuse to carry a passenger seeking to enter a country for which they do not have valid travel documents.  In view of the discrepancy between complainant’s newly issued passport and the KSA visa, complainant clearly did not have valid travel documents, which fact was confirmed by Saudi Air port Authorities also who advised that the complainant is not allowed to travel to KSA.  The conditions of carriage also provide that in the exercise of   their reasonable discretion, if opposite parties refused to carry passengers for reasons including invalid travel documents, first opposite party will not liable for any consequential loss of damage alleged due to any such refusal to carry. 

12.      The opposite party submitted that in spite of the bonafide actions on the part of the Airline and the explanations furnished to the complainant, the complainant had chosen to lodge a complaint before the Station House Officer, Karipur Police station on the same day.   In response to the query from the Station House Officer, the first opposite party informed the Police officer in writing on the following day itself that it was only after confirmation from the Airport Manager of KSA that complainant was denied boarding on the flight and opposite party informed of the unsavoury conduct of complainant at the Airport counter.  The Police officials therefore did not pursue the matter having convinced of the genuine explanations of the opposite parties. 

13.      The true facts are being as aforesaid the allegations of the complainant that the third opposite party illegally restrained and detained him in the Airport withholding his travel documents are absolutely in correct and only to improvise a wrong and imaginary cause of action.   The opposite party submitted that the action taken by them was only  in bonafide discharge  of their duty  and  in  the present complaint they took  extraordinary and abundant caution  by checking with the authorities  in the Airport of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as to whether  complainant’s boarding pass was in order to  which they received  confirmation  that he  was  no “NOT OK TO BOARD’’   and it was  in such circumstances  the complainant was denied  boarding  and the matter was informed  to the complainant. 

14.       Opposite parties submitted that there was absolutely no deficiency in service or any illegality from the part of opposite parties in denying boarding to complainant and allegation that complainant was harassed by third opposite party and suffered mental agony etc. are absolutely in correct.  So, the submission is that the opposite party Airline is not responsible for any inconveniences caused to the complainant in the above occurrence of the incident.  The opposite parties submitted that they are not at all liable for the denial of boarding of the complainant in their flight from Calicut to Jeddah on 14/04/2019 and it was due to reasons beyond their control and it was the responsibility of the passenger   to hold proper travel documents.  It is incumbent upon the Airline to scrutiny the travel documents before permitting carriage of a passenger   and any omission or failure to do the same will expose the Airline also penal and physical consequences and so the Airline is not at all liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. 

15.   The opposite party further submitted that there was not at all any deliberate action, inaction or wrongful action on the part of the third opposite party as alleged.  The opposite parties are not liable for causing any mental agony or harassment to the complainant and for non-carriage of the complainant in the flight.  Hence the submission of the opposite party is that there is no deficiency in service on their part   and there is no proof for deficiency in service or existence of negligence which is a pre-requisite for the complainant took claim for the compensation and there is no such preference from the part of the opposite parties.    The opposite parties had duly replied to the lawyer’s notice sent by the complainant and also submit the facts to the police complaint submitted by the complainant before the SHO, Police station Karipur. Hence the prayer is that there is no cause of action for the complaint and the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

16.   The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A16   and the documents on the side of opposite parties marked as Ext. B1 and B2.  Ext. A1 is copy of air ticket issued by the first opposite party to the complainant dated 14/04/2019.  Ext. A2 is copy of complaint given by the complainant to the Airport Manager, Calicut international Airport dated 14/04/2019. Ext. A3 is copy of complaint in specific format given by the complainant to the Airport Manager, Calicut International Airport dated 14/04/2019. Ext. A4 is copy of complainant’s old passport No. R8334319.  Ext. A5 is photocopy of complainant’s new passport No. T1989825. Ext. A6 is photocopy of complainant’s re-entry visa. Ext.A7 is photocopy of notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party with postal receipt and acknowledgement dated 03/05/2019. Ext. A8 is reply notice send by the opposite party to the complainant dated 07/06/2019. Ext.A9 is receipt for the complaint given by the complainant to the SHO of Police, Karipur, dated 14/04/2019. Ext. A10 is copy of complaint given by the complainant before the Superintendent of District Police Chief. Ext. A11 is copy of first page of passport belongs to one Mr.Shihab, Odungattu, No. T3451491.  Ext. A12 is a copy of Air tickets dated 16/07/2019. Ext.A13 is copy of boarding pass of Mr.Shihab, Odungattu. Ext. A14 is Photocopy of Front page of passport No. R7364949 of Thacherupadikkal Ismayil.  Ext.15 is copy of Air ticket of Thacherupadikkal Ismayil Ext. A16 is passport of the complainant with No. A1771293 issued on 07/10/1996.  Ext. B1 is copy of complaint filed before Pravasi Commission.  Ext. B2 is copy of notice issued from   Non-Resident Indians (Keralites) Commission to the third opposite party, dated 06/05/2020. 

17.     Heard complainant and opposite party, 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. Reliefs and cost.

18.  Point No.1

        The opposite party admitted that the complainant booked Air ticket with the first opposite party “Airlines for travelling from Calicut to Jeddah on 14/04/2019.   The ticket was from Calicut to Bahrain in first opposite party’s flight No. GF261 and from Bahrain to Riyadh in flight No. G163 on the same date with e-ticket No. 0723477811848.  The opposite party also admitted that the complainant was duly reported at the airport and denied the boarding pass. 

19.        According to the opposite parties, they have got sufficient reasons to deny the   boarding pass.  The ground handing staff at the Airport Counter at Calicut, in bonafide discharge of their duty, upon verification of the travel documents of complainant found that the name and date of birth of the passenger as mentioned in the passport and in the visa held by him issued by the Authorities of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are discrepant.  The complainant’s name on the new passport was deferent to that stated on his visa issued by the KSA Authorities which constituted sufficient grounds for denial of boarding on the flights. The submission of the opposite parties is that the complainant presented both passports and re-entry visa to the check-in-desk at Calicut Airport on 14^th April 2019, he was advice by check – in staff of the opposite party is that they were unable to issue him boarding pass due to the apparent discrepancy in the name and date of birth between the new passport and the re-entry visa.   The opposite party further submitted that the Airport Manager of the opposite party contacted the Saudi Airport Authorities who confirmed that the complainant should not be allowed to travel due to   improper documents and the same was informed to the complainant accordingly. The submission of the opposite parties is that the complainant was permitted to board the flight in spite of the above advice, the complainant would have certainly deported by the Saudi authorities in the light of the above facts and the opposite party Airline faced penal consequences. The opposite party submitted that it was for the complainant  to change his name and date of birth in his visa in terms of the entries in the new passport by liaising with the KSA authorities which was not complied by the complainant.  The contention of opposite party is that it is the duty and responsibility as an International Airline, bound by international norms and law, to refuse carriage to a passenger   who does not have and hold valid travel documents. 

20.    Now the question is whether the complainant was having valid travel documents while denying the boarding pass by the opposite parties.  The complainant submits that, he is presently holder of the Indian passport No. T1989825 issued on 04/03/2019 by the Regional Passport Office, Kerala.  The complainant was holder of passport No. R8334319 which stands cancelled by the passport authority on 20/02/2019 i.e., two weeks prior to the issuance of latest passport.  But his name and date of birth was mistakenly entered in second passport.   The complainant was in abroad for 20 years and he was a driver by profession in KSA.  The visa of the complainant was stamped on passport No. R8334319.  Then the complainant approached the passport authority through the proper channel to correct the same.  Thus, the concerned Authority   levied a fine of Rs. 5,000/- from complainant and issued the complainant passport No. T1989825.  The passport copies produced by the complainant before the Commission shows that passport No. R 8334319 stands cancelled on 20/02/2019 by passport officer Kozhikode.  It is further clarified that in the cancelled passport that visa if any remaining as valid.  So, it is apparent that though his passport was cancelled duly by the Passport officer, visa was valid.  The complainant produced Ext. A5, his present passport   which shows that old passport number  is R83334319, which issued on 04/10/2017 from Jeddah. The verification of both passports by the opposite parties will lead to conclude that the holder of both passports is the same person and the passport was duly stand cancelled. The stamping while cancelling the passport that visa if any remaining is valid indicate that the complainant was duly having visa at the time of reporting to board the flight on 14/04/2019. Issuance of visa is not to the passport but to the holder of passport. But the opposite party did not duly appreciate the travel documents of the complainant and thereby resulted in denial of the boarding pass. 

21.    The complainant has got a case that on receipt of travel documents from the complainant the third opposite party left the place without giving proper explanation for the denial of the boarding pass to the complainant. It is to be noted that the complainant has got a case, that he has to report at Riyadh on 15/04/2019 as scheduled and to join for his job.  But the third opposite party was indifferent to the genuine demands of the complainant and he returned the travel documents just after leaving the flight.   In effect the complainant could not travel on the particular day and he was tied up at the airport.    The complainant approached the Manager, Calicut International Airport and preferred a complaint which is evident from Ext. A2 and Ext. A3.   Thereafter the complainant approached the concerned Police also, which is evident from Ext. A9. The complainant also had preferred complaint before Pravasi Commission. Due to non-redressal of grievance the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission.  The perusal of affidavit and documents, it is evident that even though the complainant was having  sufficient valid travel documents, the opposite parties denied the boarding pass to the complainant.

22.       The submission of the opposite party is that, it is the duty and responsibilities

being an International Airline, bound by international norms and law, to refuse carriage to a passenger who does not have and hold valid travel documents.   It is further contented that the conditions of carriage also provide reasonable exercise of discretion to carry passenger seeking to enter a country for which they do not have valid travel documents. We uphold the contention of the opposite party regarding the responsibility being an International Airline bound by international norms and law but should not be misused arbitrarily, without due appreciation of documents.  The opposite party submitted that they had contacted the Saudi Airport Authorities and they confirmed that the complainant should not be allowed to travel due to improper documents. But there is no document to show that, they had contacted the Saudi Airport Authorities as stated and whether they had given opportunity to verify the travel documents of the complainant which is produced before the opposite party.  If the opposite parties had properly verified the documents, we have no doubt that they could have concluded the documents of the complainant are proper documents which entitle the complainant to travel as scheduled. The discretionary power of opposite party if any is having should not be applied arbitrarily affecting adversely against passenger like complainant. So, we find that the denial of boarding to the complainant amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

23.  Point No.2:-

         The complainant submitted that, he was having job as driver and had been working in abroad for the last 20 years.   He is the sole breadwinner of his family which includes his unemployed wife, three school going children and a mental retard brother.  He was drawing a monthly salary equal to Indian rupee of Rs. 50,000/-. The salary drawn from the abroad was the only source of income for him and his family.  He submitted that he is aged 51 years and he could have been do abroad the same job as well for a minimum of 15 years more with gradual increase in his income.   The complainant was enjoying the benefits of goodwill he acquired in his job including several kinds of allowances and he would have been entitled retirement benefits when he exists from his job abroad.   The complainant further resubmit that the complainant has got another job abroad at present.  Now, while renewing his driver visa as a result of his repeated request to all his relationship abroad, his losses due to losing the earlier permanent job is irreparable to him. He further contented that he has spent huge amount to get the above said   new driver visa, he spent money to get his travel ticket from opposite party’s company.   The complainant contented that, he lost his job abroad only because of the wrongful restrain made by opposite party’s staff without any legally justifiable reason.  Hence, the prayer of the complainant is to refund the ticket fair of the complainant worth Rs. 24000/- and compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- for deficiency in-service and there by caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant along with cost of his proceedings.  24.         The opposite party has not disputed the fact that he was having visa and also having driver job at abroad.   The opposite party also not disputed the income of the complainant. The opposite party denied the deficiency in-service on the part of the opposite parties and contented that the refusal to board the complainant into the flight as part of boanafide discharge of their duty and upon verification of the travel documents of the complainant.   But we have already found that the act of the opposite parties amounts deficiency in service and denial to board the flight was done without due verification and appreciation of document.  Hence, the question remains only to answer what is the extend of compensation the complainant is entitled.  The complainant is fair enough to admit that he has got another job abroad as result of his repeated request to all his relationship abroad.   But he submits that he sustained losses due to losing the earlier permanent job, which is irreparable to him. He further contented he spent huge amount to get the above said new driver visa.   So, we find that the complaint is entitled to refund the flight ticket fare Rs. 24,000/- as claimed by the complainant.   The complainant also entitled reasonable amount as compensation  on account of the deficiency in service from the side of opposite party and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant. Though the complainant contented that he is aged only 51 years at the time of arising the dispute and he had opportunity to work at abroad for further period of 15 years, not supporting the documents.  As per his passport, his date of birth is 11/03/1960 and so he had crossed 59 years at the time of arising the dispute.  Moreover, he is fair to admit his re-employment as a driver at abroad. Hence considering the facts, we find that Rs. 5,00,000/- will a reasonable amount as compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in-service and thereby caused in convenience, hardship, financial loss and mental agony. It is to be noted that the complainant has not produced exact documents to prove his income and thereby caused pecuniary loss to the complainant.   We allow Rs. 20,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The complainant alleged deficiency of service against third opposite party who is working under the first opposite party and so the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

25.      In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we allow the complaint as follows: -

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakh only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby caused inconvenience, hardship, financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs, 24000/-(Rupees Twenty four thousand only), the cost of flight ticket to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only)  as the cost of the proceedings. 

The opposite parties are directed to comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above said amount will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of this order till realization.

Dated this 13^thday of January, 2023.

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN 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.A1to A16

Ext. A1 : Copy of air ticket issued by the first opposite party to the complainant dated

               14/04/2019. 

Ext. A2 : Copy of complaint given by the complainant to the Airport Manager, Calicut

                international Airport dated 14/04/2019.

 Ext.A3 : Copy of complaint in specific format given by the complainant to the Airport

               Manager, Calicut international airport dated 14/04/2019.

Ext. A4 : Copy of complainant’s old passport No. R8334319.

Ext. A5  : Photocopy of complainant’s new passport No. T1989825.

Ext. A6 : Photocopy of complainant’s re-entry visa.

Ext. A7 : Photocopy of notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party with

               postal receipt and acknowledgement dated 03/05/2019.

Ext. A8 : Reply notice send by the opposite party to the complainant dated

               07/06/2019.

Ext.A9  : Receipt for the complaint given by the complainant to the SHO of Police,

                Karipur, dated 14/04/2019.

Ext.A10 : Copy of complaint given by the complainant before the Superintendent of

                District Police Chief.

Ext.A11: Copy of first page of passport belongs to one Mr.Shihab, Odungattu. 

Ext.A12: Copy of Air tickets   dated 16/07/2019.

Ext.A13: Copy of boarding pass of Mr.Shihab, Odungattu.

Ext.A14: Photocopy of Front page of passport No. R7364949 of Thacherupadikkal

                     Ismayil. 

Ext. 15 : Copy of Air ticket of Thacherupadikkal Ismayil.

Ext. A16: Passport of the complainant with No. A1771293 issued on 07/10/1996. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party                          : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party                        : Ext. B1 & B2

Ext. B1 : Copy of complaint filed before Pravasi Commission.

Ext.B2 : Copy of notice issued from   Non-Resident Indian’s (Keralaites) Commission,

               dated 06/05/2020.

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER