BEFORE THE SOUTH MUMBAI  DISTRICT  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

    O.No.

Complaint No.SMF/MUM/CC/14/189

                   Date of filing :   12/08/2014

                    Date of Order:  15/12/2017

1. Mr. Ankit Shah,

2. Mrs. Monali Ankit Shah,

(nee Ms. Doshi, spinster name)

Both residing at 253/5, Ashish Bldg.,

Near Manav Sena Sang, Ambedkar Road, Sion (W)

Mumbai – 400 022.                         …   COMPLAINANT/S

V/s.

Thai Airways Ltd.

Through its Directors/Manager Operations,

24, Mittal Towers, Ground Floor,

Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021.            …OPPONENT/OPPOSITE PARTY

Coram:

Shri. G.K. Rathod                :   Hon’ble President

Shri. S.R. Sanap               :   Hon’ble Member

Appearance:   

For Complainants            - M/s. A & A Law

                                        Adv. Shri. Anand V. Patwardhan  

                                       Adv. Anand Gawand /Adv.  Shri. Sant

For Opponent             -   Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe Advocates     

                                                // JUDGMENT//

PER SHRI. G.K. RATHOD – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

                   The facts giving rise to the present complaint briefly stated are as follows :

                             The Complainants are husband and wife and the Opponent is having business of air travel and operating airline services to most part of the world and their office at Mumbai Nariman Point.  The Complainants had got New Zealand Visa and approached the Opponent and booked two tickets on payment of Rs. 1,36,700/- on 19/12/2013, filed document at Exh. A.  The said journey to Auckland via Bangkok departing from Mumbai on 19/12/2013 and the Opponent had issued tickets for a flight TG318 Mumbai to Bangkok and flight No. TG 491 from Bangkok to Auckland and the Complainant has paid ticket amount in advance document at Exh. B.  When the Complainants reached the Thai Airways Desk at Chatrapati Shivaji International Terminus Mumbai, the Attendant at the Opponent’s counter had checked the Visas and confirmed that the Complainants were carried valid Visas and thereafter issued Board Passes for Mumbai-Bangkok but refused to issue the Boarding Passes for Bangkok to Auckland for unknown reason and the Attendant gave vague reply to the Complainant, denying Boarding Passes stating that there was no go ahead from New Zealand Immigration Department.  Therefore as a result, the Complainants were not left with any other option but to cancel the trip and return back home from Mumbai Airport and they had cancelled their tickets at last moment causing great inconvenience and frustration as the entire tour programme cancelled.  The Opponent resisted for a wrong reason and on account of mischievous attitude, after reaching the home the Complainants addressed email dtd. 23/12/2013 to the Customer Service Department of the Opponent lodging their complaint and informing them about the whole incident. The Opponent sent email on 27/12/2013 stated that the travel documents of the Complainants were not able to satisfy International Air Transport Association (IATA), Travel Information Manual (TIM) and the requirement regulations for entry into New Zealand, documents are filed at Exh. C.  Again the Complainant sent email on 30/12/2013 requesting the Opponent to provide the list of documents  required to satisfy the IATA, Travel Information Manual and entry requirement regulation for New Zealand.  However, till date the Opponent has not provided a list of said manual  or list of the documents. And therefore from the conduct of the Opponent it appears deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent.  Hence this complaint.

                    The Complainant claimed relief to reimburse the sum of Rs. 2,14,115/- which the Complainant has to bear as a loss suffered due to cancellation of the entire journey with 18% interest till its realization and also refund the cancellation charges of Rs. 46,532/- which the Complainant have paid under protest with 18% interest till its realization and Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental harassment and agony and Rs. 50,000/- towards the costs.

                   Alongwith the complaint, the Complainant has filed copy of the passport with the visa, copy of tickets, the copy of email dtd. 23/12/2013, 27/12/2013 and 30/12/2013 and notice dtd. 28/4/2014. 

(2)               After receipt of the notice, the Opponent appeared and filed written statement.  The Opponent has denied the complaint in toto.  It is contended that while completing check-in formalities for passengers traveling to New Zealand, they are required to follow and strictly adhere to the guidelines set out by the IATAs (International Air Transport Associations), Travel Information Manual (TIM)  and the Information for Airlines Manual issued by the Immigration Department of the New Zealand.  Failure to adhere to these manuals would lead to this Opponent being liable to prosecution or fines under the New Zealand Immigration Law as mentioned in the said Manuals. This Manual, apart from enumerating the documentary requirement that passengers need to satisfy to gain entry into New Zealand, further refer to a procedure known as the Advance Passenger Processing (APP) check.  APP is a mandatory procedure to be carried out by all Airlines flying to New Zealand.  It is  an interactive system which entails a checking to be undertaken by the Airlines before crew members or a passengers board flight to New Zealand to determine whether the person may travel to New Zealand.  The APP system obliges the Airlines to scan a copy of the passport of the passengers alongwith the ticket information through the system at the time of check-in and await “Ok to Board” or “Not Ok to Board” response, as the case may be.  In case the airlines receive a “Not Ok to Board” message in response, as the Opponent did receive in this case when scanning the Complainants’ passports, the airlines is obliged NOT to issue to the passengers concerned the boarding pass.  It is further contended that the Opponent have received “Not Ok to Board” response on the system in the case of the Complainants, the Opponent was obliged not to issue to them the boarding passes for the onward journey from Bangkok to Auckland in New Zealand and therefore, the Opponent had no option but to deny the boarding to the Complainants and therefore they cannot be held responsible or liable in any way in the matter.  The Opponent takes this opportunity of reproducing below the “APP check-in procedure”  as appearing in the said Manual.  As per the APP check-in procedures :

(1)  Check (face to passport) that the passenger’s  travel document belongs  

       to the passenger.

(2) Check for signs of the travel document having been fraudulently altered.

(3) Check whether the passenger is transiting into or out of New Zealand.

(4) Check whether the passenger is terminating in New Zealand.

(5) Do an APP check of the passenger and all accompanying children

     (including  infants) before issuing boarding passes.

(6) Issue a boarding pass if :

     *  the passenger has presented legitimate travel documents, and

     * you have received a positive APP message, for example, ‘Ok to Board’

        or ‘Board with Outward Ticket’ (and the passenger has valid outward

                  ticket).

7. Contact IBOC (Immigration Border Operations Centre) if you :
   • receive a contact INZ’ message.
   • receive a ‘Board with Outward Ticket’ message but the passenger does not hold an outward ticket, or
   •  are not satisfied the passenger’s travel documents are legitimate (regardless of the APP message).

NOTE : If you receive an ‘Insufficient Data’ message, check that you have entered all mandatory data, and resubmit the transaction, before calling IBOC.

Check the accuracy of the data you have entered into the APP system before contacting IBOC. If it is inaccurate in any way, cancel the transaction and start again.

8. If the Immigration Officer declines to allow the passenger to board,

advise the passenger appropriately and suggest the options available to them.  The Officer can advise you of the options, including referring the passenger to the nearest Immigration New Zealand branch.

“Penalties for non-compliance with APP procedure:

When any carrier fails without reasonable excuse to ensure a crew member or passenger meets all lawful requirements for travel to New Zealand, penalties may be incurred by the airline.

Airline staff must follow the APP procedures carefully and check all passenger documents thoroughly.

Form 1 July 2012, failure to meet the requirements may result in the service of an infringement may result in the service of an infringement notice and imposition of an infringement fee (fine).

If any doubt contact IBOC.

(3)               It is  further stated by the Opponent that when the staff of the Opponent first received “Not Ok to Board” notification in the Complainant’s case from New Zealand Immigration Department, they repeated the exercise the several times as the Complainants were holding valid New Zealand visas but each time they received negative response.  They have taken all possible steps to assist the Complainants in the matter as per the procedure mentioned above but to no avail.  In this connection, the Opponent contacted help desk team in Bangkok to coordinate with immigration Compliance Enforcement (ICE) team there, as immigration officers from New Zealand and Australia are present there for such assistance upon receiving “Not Ok to Board” notification, but this too was to no avail as there was no positive response, they have filed documents alongwith written statement.  Exh. A is the copy of internal email dtd. 26/12/2013 sent by the Opponent to its Customer Relations Department recording what actually transpired and their attempts in assisting the passengers marked Exh. B also the internal email correspondence dtd. 8/7/2014 explaining the procedure and also confirming that APP system does not enable to hard copy of the “Not Ok to Board” notification (since these transactions are online and live).  However,  the Opponent received the “Not Ok to Board” notification for the Complainant’s passport which is placed  on oath by reason of the verification clause, and by means of the Opponents affidavit evidence.  It is further contended that the Complainant No.  2 had purchased only one way ticket to Auckland New Zealand via Bangkok from Mumbai as per the email dtd. 28/11/2014 of the travel agent, Riya Holidays, who issued a flight ticket, email is at Exh. C.  From item (6) of the above quoted “APP check-in procedures” in paragraph 5, the passenger must hold a valid outward ticket from New Zealand (either a return ticket to his / her home country or to a country for which the passenger holds the valid visa).  This is made clear in the aforesaid Manual which specifically spells out that the passenger “travelling on a one-way ticket” would be treated as “inadmissible passenger” and in the absence of such return or outward ticket  had contributed to the  “Not Ok to Board” notification after the Complainants passports were being checked by the APP system.  Other contents denied by the Opponent.  It is further contended that in respect of two tickets cancelled by the travel agent Riya Holidays was the nominal charge of Rs. 340/- per ticket. The Complainants purchased the tickets from Kafé Holidays, being the sub agent of Riya Holidays at Mumbai.  It is further stated that the complaint  itself evidence that the cancellation charges insisted upon, not by the Opponent but by the said sub-agent Kafe Holidays from whom the Complainants had purchased the tickets.  It is further contended that as per the contents of the letter dtd. 23/12/2013 of the Complainant it is contended that he had forcefully void the tickets so as to avoid losing on all the ticket price and therefore it is apparent that Kafé Holidays wrongly demanded and recovered charges on account of cancellation charges of Rs. 46,532/- for which the Opponent cannot be held liable . Considering the contents of the complaint there is no any fault on the part of the Opponent and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs and not responsible for any relief against the Opponent.

(4)               From the above facts, the following points arouse for our determination :

Reasoning :-

(5)                        We have gone through the contents of the complaint, written statement of the Opponent, documents, written arguments, affidavit evidence and oral arguments by the Parties.  It is admitted fact that the Complainant No.2 has purchased a one way ticket to Auckland New Zealand via Bangkok from Mumbai from the travel agent Riya Holidays and as per the documents filed by the Opponent from item (6) of the “APP check-in procedure” in para 5 the passenger must hold a valid outward ticket from New Zealand (either a return ticket to his/ her home country or to a country for which the passenger hold a valid visa) and as per the Manual, which specifically spells out that a passenger “travelling on a one way ticket” would be treated as an “inadmissible passenger” and the Opponent craves leave to refer to and rely upon the relevant provisions in the Manual in New Zealand and in the absence of such a return or outward ticket could have contributed “Not Ok to Board” notification after the Complainants passports were being checked by the App System.  The Opponent  Desk also contacted Bangkok to coordinate with the Immigration Compliance Enforcement but the Immigration Officers from the New Zealand were helpless from the APP system. The Complainants received a reply on his ticket “Not Ok to Board” as the Complainant  was having one way ticket and as per the Manual the Opponent had complied and  had made efforts and coordinate with the Complainants but as per the mandatory requirement for “Ok to Board”  that passengers are required for return or outward ticket. The Complainant No.2’s  ticket was one way to Auckland New Zealand via Bangkok via Mumbai.  Consequently, APP System was not issued Boarding Pass and therefore, we do not find any substance in the contentions of the Complainant. There is no negligence and deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent. The cancellation charges taken by the Complainants agent from where the Complainant has booked the ticket, therefore, we found substance in the submission of the Opponent and therefore answered the point (Nos. 1 & 2) in negative.   

(6)               With the aforesaid discussion and observations,  we proceed to pass the following order :.

//  O R D E R  //

1.  The complaint stands dismissed.

(ii)     No order as to costs.

(iii)   Certified copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.       

     sd/-xxx                                                                sd/-xxx

(Shri. S.R. Sanap)                                       (Shri.G.K. Rathod)

  Hon’ble  Member                                       Hon’ble President

Note:-  As the pleadings, affidavit, documents, written arguments of the parties, are in English, the order in the proceeding is passed for the better knowledge of the parties in English.

vns