BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SHRI. P. SUDHIR                                :         PRESIDENT

SMT. SATHI. R                                   :         MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                            :         MEMBER

                                              C.C.No: 481/2013     Filed on 15/11/2013

                                            Dated:  30..09..2015

Complainant:    

Shaji Chellappan, S/o Chellappan, “Shabda”, TC No: 6/1572 (6), S.N. Nagar, Pulayanarkottah, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011.

                 (By Adv. Binu Kumar. S)

Opposite parties:

1. Oman Air, “Padma Sree”, TC No: 4/698(2), Opp. Narmada Shopping Complex, Toll Junction, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 003.

         (By Adv. Ranjit. R)

2. Akbar Travels of India, Our Towers, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 010.

         (By Adv.  M. Hari Kumar)

This C.C having been heard on 15..09..2015, the Forum on 30..09..2015  delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI, MEMBER:

         The case of the complainant is that he is a Pravasi Malayalee and he booked two seats in the 1^st opposite party for return journey to Saudi Arabia on 21/06/2013 through 2^nd opposite party travel agency for Rs. 37,600/-. On 21/06/2013 he and his wife reached the Airport at Thiruvananthapuram at 4 A.M with valid passports, visas and tickets. After the checking they approached the counter of Oman Air Flight No. WY-212 for obtaining Tvp – Jiddah boarding pass. But the staff of the Oman Air in the said counter alleged that travel documents are not OK and such they could not travel on that day. Then the complainant and his wife approached the immigration clearance officials and after inspecting all the travel documents they are of the opinion that they are valid for issuing boarding passes for travelling. The complainant had requested the 1^st opposite party to verify the details of the travel documents through their computers, but they refused. The complainant also informed the staff of 1^st opposite party that he has to report to his duty at 7 A.M on 22/6/2013. But the staff of the 1^st opposite party cancelled the journey of complainant and his wife and the matter of their return was recorded in the log book page No. 56 of the CISF officials in the Airport by which they were off loaded from the Airport. The complainant and his wife had approached another Airlines Qatar Airways with the very same documents, obtained two fresh tickets and had travelled in Flight No. QR 241 on next day, that is, on 22/06/2013 at 5A.M. The emergency ticket costs Rs. 40,338/- which caused another loss of more than Rs. 2,000/-. As the complainant could not report on duty on 22/06/2013 he suffered a loss of Rs. 30,000/-. The 1^st opposite party had refunded ticket amounts after deducting Rs. 4,000/- from each two tickets totalling a loss of Rs. 8,000/- to the complaint. The 1^st opposite party had no right to obtain any amount from the complainant as the whole thing happened due to the negligent and deliberate act of the 1^st opposite party and caused mental agony sufferings to the complainant and his wife. The opposite parties are therefore guilty of deficiency of service and they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Hence complainant filed this complaint to direct opposite parties to refund Rs. 8,000/- with interest, Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 2,738/- as the additional ticket amounts for travelling in Qatar Airways, Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and to direct the 1^st opposite party not to torture Pravasi Malayalee passengers by refusing their fundamental right to travel without any valid reason.

         2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Both opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.

         3. The 1^st opposite party submitted that on verification of travel documents of the complainant and Mrs. Bindu accompanied by him, it is found that her entry permit / visa does not contain exit / re-entry seal or date, set for her re-entry in Saudi Arabia. The allegation that the immigration officials informed the complainant that the documents are valid is incorrect. The opposite party staff only explained the facts to them and expressed their inability to issue the boarding pass. More over another Airline accepted the passenger with the same document is not a reason to blame Oman Air. There was no deliberate or reckless act on the part of the staff of Oman Air and the allegation regarding causing mental agony and sufferings is not correct. There is no cause of action for the complaint and the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as claimed.

         4. The 2^nd opposite party filed version stating that there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant against this opposite party. But it is true that the complainant had booked two seats for return journey to Saudi Arabia and this opposite party is authorised to issue air tickets being an IATA approved agent, issued two air tickets. It is stated that this opposite party will issue tickets after verification of documents or on condition that journey is subject to the production of valid travel documents at the time of journey. All the allegations in the complaint are levelled only against the 1^st opposite party and none of the acts constituted deficiency in service from the part of this opposite party was alleged anywhere in the complaint by the complainant. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against this opposite party and to be dismissed with cost to this opposite party.

         5. The complainant filed chief affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P10. Complainant was examined as PW1. The opposite parties filed chief affidavit and marked Exts. D1 and D2. Opposite parties were examined as DW1 and DW2.

         6. Issues:

         (i) Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties?

         (ii) Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs as sought for?

         7. Issues (i) & (ii):  The gist of the case is that the complainant had booked two seats for the return journey on 21/06/2013 to Saudi Arabia for him and his wife with the 1^st opposite party’s flight. But after the baggage checking the 1^st opposite party refused to issue boarding pass. They even did not care to verify the details of the travel documents through on-line visa checking. The staff of the 1^st opposite party cancelled the journey of the complainant and his wife. They travelled in Qatar Airways Flight No. QR 241 on the next day, that is on 22/06/2013 at 5 A.M with very same travel documents. The main contention raised by the 1^st opposite party is that the visa of Mrs. Bindu does not contain exit / re-entry seal or any date, set for her re-entry in Saudi Arabia and also stated the after effect of that. The complainant produced Ext. P1 to show that they are having confirmed tickets on 21/06/2013 and Ext. P2 series and Ext. P3 to show that they took return tickets for 22/06/2013 on 21/6/2013. The complainant stated that due to the deliberate act of the 1^st opposite party he was not able to report for his job on 22/06/2013 for which his employer had denied job for 10 days which caused loss of Rs. 30,000/-. The 2^nd opposite party had deducted Rs. 8000/- from the value of the tickets and he had to spend additional amount of Rs. 2738/- for travelling next day. The 2^nd opposite party stated that they issued confirmed tickets to the complainant and they refunded the ticket charges after deducting Rs. 8000/- as cancellation charges imposed by the 1^st opposite party on the 2^nd opposite party as per their rules. The 2^nd opposite party has not deducted any amount, as service charges etc from the ticket charges received from the complainant. Here the only point to be determined is on what ground the 1^st opposite party denied boarding pass to complainant and his wife. The reason stated by the 1^st opposite party is that the entry permit / visa did not contained exit / re-entry seal. Then we have to go through the documents produced by the parties. The complainant produced Ext. P6 and P10(a) the translation from Arabic to English shows that there is entry permit. Moreover while cross examining DW1 he deposed thus: exit stamp ഇല്ലാതെ ഒരു passenger – ന് അവിടെ നിന്ന് ഇങ്ങോട്ട് വരാന്‍ കഴിയില്ല എന്നു പറയുന്നു  (Q)  എനിക്കറിയില്ല (A). At the time of cross examination of DW2, he was asked – international ticket issue ചെയ്യുംപോള്‍ എന്ത് document  ആണ് പരിശോധിക്കുന്നത് (Q) passport and visa (A)  ഇത്  valid  ആണ് എന്ന്കണ്ടാലല്ലേ  ticket confirm ചെയ്യാറുള്ളോ  (Q) അതെ (A). Page 3 of deposition - യാത നിരസിക്കുകയോ അനുവദിക്കുകയോ ചെയ്യുന്നത് അതാത് രാജ്യത്തെ emigration department അല്ലേ (Q) അതെ (A).  

         6. Here the complainant and his wife returned to Saudi Arabia the very next day, that is, on 22/06/2013. The 1^st opposite party stated that the complainant obtained exist re-entry seal through online on the visa paper of Smt. Bindu Shaji. But the 2^nd opposite party who is an IATA agent deposed in page (5) of deposition ‘on line ആയി seal affix ചെയ്യുവാന്‍ കഴിയുമോ (Q) പററില്ല  (A).

 .

         7. From this it is clear that the reason for denial of boarding pass to complainants by 1^st opposite party is unjustifiable. More over it is not genuine to say that the complainant obtained re-entry seal through online on the same day and booked another ticket. The words of the complainant is believable as he states that he travelled with the same documents for which 1^st opposite party replied that another airline accepted the passenger with the same document is not a reason to blame Oman Air, as Oman Air wanted to strictly follow the legal procedure in order to avoid any coercive steps. It is not a correct statement. The rules and regulations are binding on all Airlines and all are bound to obey it. Hence it is our considered view that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the side of 1^st opposite party and they are bound to compensate for that. Therefore 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- being the amount deducted from the value of two tickets, Rs. 2738/- as additional ticket amount for travelling in Qatar Airways along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

         In the result, complaint is allowed directing the 1^st opposite party is pay Rs. 8000/- being the amount deducted from the value of two tickets, Rs. 2738/- as additional ticket amount for travelling in Qatar Airways along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 2738/- and Rs. 25,000/- shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of default till payment along with costs of Rs. 5000/-.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of  September, 2015.

  Sd/-R. SATHI                :         MEMBER

 Sd/- P. SUDHIR                       :         PRESIDENT

  Ad.                        Sd/-LIJU B. NAIR          :         MEMBER

C.C.No: 481/2013

APPENDIX

   I. Complainant’s witness:

          PW1   :         Shaji Chellappan

 II. Complainant’s documents:

          P1      :  copies of two Air tickets of Oman Air

          P2      :  E-Ticket Receipt

          P3      :  Citibank Visa Debit Card receipt dated 21/06/2013

          P4      :  Copy of cheque No. 447651 dated 21/06/2013 of SBT, Thiruvananthapuram Main Branch.

          P5 series: Copy of relevant pages of passport of the complainant and his wife Bindu

          P6      :  Translated page of exit visa

          P7series: Copy of Exit & Re-entry visa dated 17/11/2012 of the complainant and his wife Bindu

          P8      :  Copy of Exit & Re-entry visa dated 26/05/2010 of the complainant

          P9      :  Copy of Electronic Exit & Re-entry visa of Chellappan Sulochana-Shaji

          P10    :  Translated copy of Exit & Re-entry visa dated 18/03/2015 of Shaji Bindu

III. Opposite parties’ witness:

DW1  :  Suresh Kumar Pillai

          DW2  :  Abhilash S. Nair

 IV. Opposite parties’ documents:

          D1      :  Copy of Electronic Exit & Re-entry visa of Surendran Kizhakkekalayil

          D2      :  Copy of flight handling report

Sd/-PRESIDENT

  ad