Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/834/2017

Mohammed Usama - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saudi Arabian Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Isamail M.Musba

20 Jun 2018

ORDER

                                                                                  Complaint filed on: 26.04.2017

                                                      Disposed on: 20.06.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.834/2017

DATED THIS THE 20^th JUNE OF 2018

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	Mohammed Usama, S/o Burhanuddin Siddiqua Aged about 47 years, R/at Nawayath Colony, Near Hero Honda Show Room, National Highway-17, Bhatkal-581320   By.Adv.Afaque Kola		Saudi Arabian Airlines, No.105, Parvathi Plaza, Richmond Circle, Bengaluru-560 025. Rep by its Authorized Signatory.     Exparte

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

1.       This complaint has been filed by the complainant as against the Opposite Party directing to refund the ticket charges for the flight-Saudi Arabian Airlines (SV) 772 from Jeddah to Mumbai amounting to Rs.96,000/- along with interest at 24% p.a., to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- towards the ticket charges booked for the subsequent flight-Air Arabia bearing Flight No.G9 148 from Jeddah to Sharjah and connecting Flight No.G9492 from Sharjah to Goa (Madgaon) to reach India along with interest at 24% p.a., to refund the Train Ticket fare of Rs.7,360/- from Panvel (Mumbai) to Udupi via Mumbai CST-Manguluru Junction S.F.Express (Mangalore Express) on 17.7.2016 due to deficiency on part of the Saudi Arabian Airlines and also to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- of booking a cab from Goa (Madgaon) Airport to Bhatkal along with interest at 24% p.a., to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the Complainant as damages, along with interest at 24% p.a., to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony, hardship and consequential loss suffered by the Complainant due to the negligent act of the Opposite Party, to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- towards expenses and other costs incurred by the Complainant, to grant such other reliefs.

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that the Opposite Party is a Flag Carrier Airline of Saudi Arabia and is considered to be among the world’s largest airlines with a whole fleet of crafts and is the winner of various awards in acknowledgement of its outstanding achievement and services. Most of the flights operate during the Hajji and Umrah season. The head office of Opposite Party is located at the address mentioned above at Bangalore. The Complainant submits that he along with 7 members of his family including his aged mother, wife, young children and nephew intended to travel to Saudi Arabia to perform “Umrah” a religious pilgrimage in the month of June 2016. The Complainant planned to travel with his family from Mumbai to Jeddah to perform Umrah and thereafter visit Dubai and return to Mumbai from Jeddah in the month of July 2016. The Complainant submits that he availed the services as the Opposite Party to travel to pilgrimage by purchasing the air ticket by himself. The air ticket was purchased by himself for him as well as his other family members. As such he has incurred the entire expenses. Hence, he is seeking relief for claiming compensation and damages for himself as well as on behalf of other family members. The Complainant submits that after performing his Umrah along with his family, he planned to return to India via Saudi Arabian Airlines (SV) 772 from Jeddah to Mumbai scheduled to depart on 16.7.2016 at 12:05 A.M. and reach at 7:30 P.M. The cost of the tickets booked from Jeddah to Mumbai was Rs.96,000/- @ Rs.12,000/- per person. The Complainant further submits that he had also booked a connecting train from Panvel (Mumbai) to Udupi via Mumbai CST-Manguluru Junction S.F.Express (Mangalore Express) on 17.7.2016 and fare of the train tickets booked from Panvel to Udupi was Rs.7,360/-. On 16.7.2016, he along with 7 of his family members entered the Jeddah Airport at 10:00 A.M. in the morning to enable them to book their baggage and complete all the formalities of immigration as per schedule. When the Complainant and his family members reached the counter, they were informed that there were some technical problems with the baggage processing machine and it would take some time to redress the technical snag and were requested to wait. Hence, the Complainant and his family members were made to wait and there was considerable delay in booking their luggage. However, they booked their luggage and were given the boarding pass to enter the flight. When they approached the gate at around 11:40 A.M. to enter the plane, the Saudi Arabian Airlines Personnel stopped them from entering the plane despite them having the boarding pass inspite of several requests to board the plane and expressing the difficulty if the plane were to leave without them on board would cause irreparable loss, mental trauma and huge expenditure for the entire family. More so the request was made as the scheduled flight had not taken off and there was a delay in the flight taking off. The Complainant further submits that the employees of Saudi Arabian Airlines very rudely and adamantly refused to permit the Complainant and his family members to pass through the boarding gate and enter the flight. Despite several requests, they were not permitted to board the flight even though the flight was delayed and had not taken off as yet. However, ironically all baggage of Complainant ad his family members which were booked earlier were dispatched along with the said flight to Mumbai. The Complainant has sufficient proof of their baggage being dispatched on the said flight. The Complainant states that the though the Opposite Party prevented them boarding the flight, they have dispatched their baggage in the same flight i.e. Saudi Arabian Airlines (SV) 772 to Mumbai. The act of the Opposite Party in dispatching their baggage without having the passengers on board is violative of Annex-17 of ICAO Rules. The procedure known as “baggage reconciliation” attempts to ensure that the only baggage loaded onto an aircraft is that belonging to passengers of that flight who have actually boarded the aircraft. Baggage reconciliation was introduced into Annex 17 in the 1980s at a time when advanced automated screening for explosives in hold baggage was not available. The process was implemented as a compensatory security layer as a response to vulnerabilities identified after several tragic attacks on aircraft involving bombs placed in unaccompanied baggage. The Complainant submits that as they were prevented from boarding the flight after having been given the boarding pass, they had no other alternative but to exit the airport. However as they were given the boarding pass and immigration seal was stamped on the passport, they were unable to leave the airport. Subsequently, the Saudi Government Authorities cancelled the permission to exit and permitted them enter Saudi Arabia and the same is evidenced in the passport. After exiting the airport, he along with his aged mother and family were left without any clothes as their baggage had been dispatched and were compelled to wait for another three days to board the flight to India. The Complainant had incurred several additional expenses with respect to clothing. Food and accommodation during their unexpected and unplanned stay in Jeddah. The entire experience at the Airport at the hands of the staff of Opposite Party, was very disappointing. The staff of Opposite Party were very rude in behavior, reckless in attitude and very insensitive to the situation and totally unprofessional. The Complainant submits that they had booked another flight on 19.7.2016 through Air Arabia bearing Flight No.G9 148 from Jeddah to Sharjah and connecting Flight No.G9492 from Sharjah to Goa (Madgoan). The fare of the flights were Rs.1,52,000/- @ Rs.19,000/- per person. After reaching Madgaon, Goa, they arranged for a cab to travel to Bhatkal and the expenses incurred towards the fare of the cab was Rs.6,000/-. Further, the Complainant after their arrival in India had to proceed to Mumbai to collect their baggage which was lying in Mumbai. The Complainant was made to pay additional fees to collect the baggage and have incurred additional expenses to retrieve their baggage. The pilgrimage to Makkah and Madina is a religious duty and a path to salvation and should be performed atleast once in the lifetime. They were very happy, excited and hoped that their trip would be a dream come true. However with such a terrible experience with the Saudi Arabian Airlines, the entire trip of Umrah had become a total disaster and a nightmare. Due to the lack of professional attitude, callous attitude and deficiency of service on part of the Saudi Arabian Airlines, the Complainant and his family members have been made to suffer huge financial loss and undergo severe mental stress and trauma. The Complainant and his family members were in an embarrassing situation and at the mercy of the Saudi Government and compelled to stay in Saudi Arabia for no fault or lapse on their part. The Complainant had incurred huge financial expenses for the entire trip. Hence, the Complainant has got issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party calling upon to refund the ticket charges for the flight from Jeddah to Mumbai amounting to Rs.96,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- towards the ticket charges booked for the subsequent flight from Jeddah to Goa (Madgaon) to reach India and to refund the Train Ticket fare of Rs.7,360/- from Panvel (Mumbai) to Udupi via Mumbai CST-Manguluru Junction S.F.Express (Mangalore Express) on 17.7.2016 which the Complainant ad his family members were unable to board due to deficiency on part of the Saudi Arabian Airlines and also to pay cost of Rs.6,000/- of booking a cab from Goa (Madgaon) Airport to Bhatkal. Further, the Complainant has also called upon the Opposite Party to pay additional expenses incurred towards food, accommodation and clothes for their unexpected and unintended stay in Jeddah without their baggage. The Complainant has also called upon the Opposite Party to pay damages towards deficiency of service, lack of professionalism on part of Saudi Arabian Airlines which resulted in missing their flight for no fault or lapse on the part of Complainant and undergoing immense mental stress and trauma. The said notice was duly served upon the Opposite Party. The Complainant submits that instead of bridging a good, cordial customer relationship with the Complainant, the Opposite Party has fuelled more dissatisfaction to the relationship between the Complainant and Opposite Party. The act of the Opposite Party clearly demonstrated that in any of the ways, the Opposite Party would try to exploit the customers/Complainant and cause loss for no reasons. Till date the Opposite Party has not paid the amount along with the documents inspite of repeated requests. The conduct of the Complainant amounts to deficiency of service as a result of which the Opposite Parties have rendered themselves liable.  The Opposite Party has neglected in performing their legal duties towards the Complainant. Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to care. The Complainant has suffered mental agony, embarrassment and monetary loss and credibility throughout. Therefore, the Opposite Party is required to compensate the Complainant for the damages caused by breach of legal duty as the damages caused by the breach the wrong, the injury occasioned by such negligence is liable to be compensated in terms of money and the courts apply the well settled principles for determination of the exact liquidated amount and hence having left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, the Complainant is approaching this Forum in  the present complaint seeking for compensation, damages and for other consequential reliefs. Hence, this complaint.   

3.       Notice was ordered to the Opposite party. Inspite of notice duly served on them, they did not appear, hence placed exparte.

4.       The complainant to substantiate his case, filed affidavit evidence and got marked as Ex-A1 to A7 and close aside. The complainant has also filed written arguments. Heard learned counsel for the Complainant.

           5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

       1) Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency in service on

            the part of the OP, if so, whether he is entitled for the relief

            sought for?

        2) What Order?

                  

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1 : Affirmative

Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1 :   We have already stated above, the Complainant  along with 7 members of his family including his aged mother, wife, young children and nephew intended to travel to Saudi Arabia to perform “Umrah” a religious pilgrimage in the month of June 2016. In this context, he planned to travel with his family from Mumbai to Jeddah to perform Umrah and thereafter visit Dubai and return to Mumbai from Jeddah in the month of July 2016. The Complainant and his family members after performing Umrah, he planned to return to India via Saudi Arabian Airlines (SV) 772 from Jeddah to Mumbai scheduled to depart on 16.7.2016 at 12:05 A.M. and reached at 7:30 P.M. The cost of the tickets booked from Jeddah to Mumbai was Rs.96,000/- at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per person. To substantiate this fact, the Complainant has produced the said booked tickets marked as Ex-A2. It is also the case of the Complainant that he had also booked a connecting train from Panvel (Mumbai) to Udupi via Mumbai CST-Manguluru Junction S.F.Express (Mangalore Express) on 17.7.2016 and fare of the train tickets booked from Panvel to Udupi was Rs.7,360/-. Further, the Complainant submits that on 16.7.2016, along with 7 of his family members entered the Jeddah Airport at 10:00 A.M. in the morning to enable them to book their baggage and complete all the formalities of immigration as per schedule. The Complainant and his family members reached the counter, they were informed that there were some technical problems with the baggage processing machine and it would take some time to redress the technical snag and were requested to wait. In this context, the Complainant and his family members were made to wait and there was considerable delay in booking their luggage. However, they booked their luggage and were given the boarding pass to enter the flight. When they approached the gate at around 11:40 A.M. to enter the plane, the Opposite Party Personnel stopped them from entering the plane despite them having the boarding pass inspite of several requests to board. They were prevented from boarding the flight after having been given the boarding pass, they were made to exit the airport. However as they were given the boarding pass, immigration seal was stamped on the passport, they were unable to leave the airport. Subsequently, the Saudi Government Authorities cancelled the permission to exit and permitted them enter Saudi Arabia and the same is evidenced in the passport. To substantiate this fact, the Complainant has produced the details passports as per Ex-A4. This fact is also not denied by the Opposite Party by way of filing the version.

 8.      It is also the specific case of the Complainant that despite several requests, they were not permitted to board the flight even though the flight was delayed and had not taken off as yet. However, all baggage of Complainant ad his family members which were booked earlier were dispatched along with the said flight to Mumbai. In this context, the Complainant has produced Ex-A3 which clearly substantiated the contention taken by the Complainant. The Opposite Party prevented the Complainant and his family members from boarding the flight but dispatched their baggage in the same flight i.e. Saudi Arabian Airlines (SV) 772 to Mumbai. According to the case of the Complainant, the said act of the Opposite Party in dispatching their baggage without having the passengers on board is violative of Annex-17 of ICAO Rules. The procedure known as “baggage reconciliation” attempts to ensure that the only baggage loaded onto an aircraft is that belonging to passengers of that flight who have actually boarded the aircraft. Baggage reconciliation was introduced into Annex 17 in the 1980s at a time when advanced automated screening for explosives in hold baggage was not available. The said process was implemented as a compensatory security layer as a response to vulnerabilities identified after several tragic attacks on aircraft involving bombs placed in unaccompanied baggage. Due to the lack of professional attitude, callous attitude and deficiency of service on part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant and his family members were made to suffer huge financial loss and undergo severe mental stress and trauma. Further at the mercy of the Saudi Government and compelled to stay in Saudi Arabia for no fault or lapse on their part. We find a considerable force in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the Complainant as this fact is not denied by the Opposite Party. It is also specifically submitted by the Complainant that their passports were sealed for existing as such it became even more difficult for them to cope up with the procedure because none from the Opposite Party side extended any support. They were deserted in the midst of their journey. In such situation, it is duty casted upon the Opposite Party to see that no hardship or loss is caused to their customers. In such conditions, the Opposite Party was supposed to provide the basic facilities because the customers would not be well acquainted with the foreign language and other formalities. The Opposite Party should have provided food and accommodation to them and arrange for the next flight. Despite of that the Opposite Party turned their back like as if they were not their customers and put them in a very merciless and deplorable situation. The Complainant and his family members had no money, cloths, shelter, knew no one to seek help, language, etc., all these made it miserable and devastating. Therefore, they were left in a stated of epilepsy. The Complainant and his family were stranded in strange place. The ordeal was very painful and devastating. They were left in lurch. They had to call their relatives over here in India and arrange for money and tickets. Even during these hard times, the Opposite Party did not bother to enquire about their conditions. If this would have happened with any of the rich and influential customers, the Opposite Party would have taken special care. The Complainant submits that the Opposite Party instead of bridging a good, cordial customer relationship with the customers, they have fuelled more dissatisfaction to the relationship between the Complainant and Opposite Party. The act of the Opposite Party clearly demonstrated that in any of the ways, the Opposite Party would try to exploit the customers/Complainant and cause loss for no reasons. The Complainant was very happy, excited and hoped that their trip would be a dream come true. However, with such a terrible experience with the Opposite Party, the entire trip of pilgrimage had become a total disaster and nightmare.

 9.      If the above submissions of the Complainant are taken into consideration, one thing is clear that there is a deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party in not rendering the service. The Complainant and his family members were issued with boarding pass, but they were prevented to board the flight that itself is a deficiency of service, mental agony, physical harassment, unfair trade practice as per the following decisions reported in I.          IV (2012) CPJ 57 (Chd.) in the case Air India (Nacil) V/s P.K.Daga wherein it was held that:

II. Boarding denied-Complainant not marked as ‘No show passenger’’ –Mental agony and physical harassment-Unfair trade Practice proved.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2 (1)(g), 2 (1) (r), 15-Airlines-Registered as frequent traveller-Ticket Booked-Boarding denied-Deficiency in service-Unfair trade practice-District Forum allowed complaint –Hence appeal-Onus was on OP to prove that Complainant was marked ‘No show’ passenger as he failed to report to concerned authorities, well before time of departure of flight-Complainant had to suffer mental agony and physical harassment despite having a confirmed ticket, due to negligence of Opposite Party- Award of punitive damage set aside-Impugned order modified.

III. Royal Jordanian Airlines V/s Nanak singh, III (2010) CPJ 175 (NC), wherein it was held that:

Boarding denied-Ticket-OK-Deplaned-Visa expired-Compensation awarded-

          Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2 (1)(g), 14 (1)(d), 21(b), 24A-Airlines-Boarding denied-Ticket OK-Deplaned-Visa permit expired-Deficiency in service alleged-Forum directed Airlines to pay compensation-Appeal dismissed-Hence Revision Petition-Objections regarding territorial jurisdiction, limitation overruled as complaint filed where part of cause of action arose, within prescribed time- complaint’s plea that his re-entry permit expires ought to be given topmost consideration-Any passenger with confirmed OK ticket who comes in time cannot be denied boarding-Deplaned on flimsy ground of over-booking not tenable-Plea of follow-up action taken by approaching Embassy, not mitigate deficiency in service-Mental agony, harassment, loss of job too obvious to be ignored-Compensation awarded by Forum and confirmed by State Commission fully justified-Deficiency in service proved. 

IV.     Jet Airways (India) Ltd. & Anr.V/s Amit Nimade & Anr., III (2009) CPJ 99 (M.P.) wherein it was held that:

Boarding denied to confirmed ticket holder-Bound to pay compensation

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2 (1)(g) and 14 (1)(d)-Airlines-boarding denied-Confirmed ticket holders not accommodated in flight-Advised to come for evening flight-Entire onward journey had to be cancelled Deficiency in service proved-Airlines cannot brush aside/shirk from liability merely by attributing it to some mistake/confusion-Mistake even if occurred at the end of agent, Airlines vicariously liable to pay compensation  of Rs.50,000 awarded by Forum with interest-Compensation awarded towards inconvenience and harassment, not excessive-upheld in appeal.

V.      Cox and Kings (India) Limited V/s Prashant Aggarwal & Ors., III (2012) CPJ 537 (NC) wherein it was held that:

Boarding not allowed-Tickets marked as “OK”-Compensation granted

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2 (1)(g), 3, 11 (a), 14 (1)(d), 21 (b)-Airlines-Boarding not allowed-Confirmation of ticket disputed-Alleged deficiency in service –District Forum partly allowed complaint-State Commission dismissed appeals-Hence revision-Contention regarding lack of jurisdiction of District Forum is also totally untenable in view of provisions of Section 3 r/w Section 11 (a) of Act-Photo copies of tickets issued by CKL to Complainant 1 and 2 are on record and clearly show that status of both tickets was marked “OK”- District Forum’s finding of deficiency in service on part of OPs, as affirmed by State Commission cannot be faulted-Claim regarding quantum of award in respect of reimbursement of cost of Complainant’s extended stay in Colombo is valid-Directions issued.

VI. Aeroflot Russian Airlines v/s Savithri.J.Shetty & Ors., II (2012) CPJ

      229 (Kar.) wherein it was held that:

Boarding not allowed inspite of confirmed ticket-Service of notice not on correct address-Order unjust.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2 (1)(g), 15-Airlines-Boarding not allowed inspite of confirmed ticket-Alleged deficiency in service-Service of notice-District Forum order exparte-setting aside-Notice was not issued to correct address of OP 1 as they have changed their address from old one before filing of complaint-It was wrongly held by District forum that service of notice on OP 1 is sufficient-Impugned order unjust and improper

In the light of the decision cited supra, we come to the conclusion that the Complainant is entitled for the relief sought for the refund of ticket charges for the Flight-Saudi Arabian Airlines (SV) 772 from Jeddah to Mumbai amounting to Rs.96,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of booking the ticket till the date of repayment. Further, the Complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,52,000/- towards the ticket charges booked for the subsequent Flight-Air Arabia bearing Flight No.G9 148 from Jeddah to Sharjah and connecting flight No.G9492 from Sharjah to Goa (Madgaon) to reach India along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Further, the Complainant is entitle for refund of train ticket fare of Rs.7,360/- from Panvel (Mumbai) to Udupi via Mumbai CST-Manguluru Junction S.F.Express (Mangalore Express) on 17.7.2016 due to deficiency of service on the part of the Saudi Arabian Airlines and also to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- for booking a cab from Goa (Madgaon) Airport to Bhatkal along with interest 6% p.a. With regard to the damages for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is hereby denied since we have already come to the conclusion for the refund of the air ticket, train ticket and also cab charges. With regard to the compensation, the Complainant has sought for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. In our considered view, the said amount is exorbitant. Looking to the mental agony and hardship and consequential loss suffered by the Complainant and his family members, we are of the opinion that Rs.1,00,000/- is substantial part of amount towards mental agony and hardship and consequential loss  suffered by the Complainant and his family members. Cost of litigation is fix at Rs.5,000/-.   Accordingly, this point is answered in the affirmative.

10.     POINT NO.2: In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.96,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of booking the ticket till the date of repayment. 

The Complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,52,000/- towards the ticket charges booked for the subsequent Flight-Air Arabia bearing Flight No.G9 148 from Jeddah to Sharjah and connecting flight No.G9492 from Sharjah to Goa (Madgaon) to reach India along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of booking to till its realization.

Further, the Complainant is entitled for refund of train ticket fare of Rs.7,360/- from Panvel (Mumbai) to Udupi via Mumbai CST-Manguluru Junction S.F.Express (Mangalore Express) on 17.7.2016 due to deficiency of service on the part of the Saudi Arabian Airlines along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of booking to till its realization.

The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- for booking a cab from Goa (Madgaon) Airport to Bhatkal along with interest 6% p.a. from the date of booking to till its realization.

The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and hardship and consequential loss  suffered by the Complainant and his family members. Cost of litigation is fix at Rs.5,000/-.  

 The Opposite Party is directed to comply this order within 6 weeks from the receipt of this Order. Failing which, the Complainants are at liberty to take proper steps as per law.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open Forum on 20^th June 2018).

(ROOPA.N.R)       MEMBER	(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Mohammed Usama.,who being the Complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Details of Opposite Party as found in their website
Ex-A2	Tickets booked on 16.7.2016
Ex-A3	Baggage pass
Ex-A4	Passports
Ex-A5	Flight tickets on 19.7.2016
Ex-A6	Legal notice
Ex-A7	Acknowledgement

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)      MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)     PRESIDENT