BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
FA NO.179 OF 2015 AGAINST CC NO.142 OF 2014
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY
Between:
1) Munnur Ravindar S/o late M.Krishnaiah,
Aged 58 years, Occ: Legal Practitioner,
2) Smt.Munnur Suchitra Devi
W/o Munnur Ravindar, aged 55 years,
Occ: Business, Both R/o H.No.42-252,
Sri Krishna Nilayam, New Gunj,
Beside RTC New Bus-stand,
Wanaparthy Town, Mahabubnagar district.
(Telangana).
…Appellants/Complainants
And
The Air India Ltd.,
Nampally, Hyderabad. Telangana.
Rep.by its Manager (Reservations).
…Respondent/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellants : Parties-in-person
Counsel for the Respondent : Ms.V.Uma Devi
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
and
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Friday, the Sixteenth day of September
Two thousand Sixteen
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
1) This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful Complainants before the forum below aggrieved by orders dated 31.07.2015 of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy made in C.C.No.142 of 2014 dismissing the complaint for non-joinder of the necessary party i.e., Immigration Department.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3) The case of the complainants, in brief, is that they booked travel tickets from Hyderabad to Detroit through Krisbi Travels, for onward journey scheduled on 16th July 2012 at 2050 hours by AI 127 and return ticket on 14th October 2012 at 10-15 a.m. from Detroit. The Complainants reached the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport and got boarding passes from the Opposite party and during immigration check, on suspicion, Complainants were asked to give ‘indemnity bond’ with regard to passports. Complainants prepared indemnity bonds on the request of Immigration Officer and were about to board the flight, at which time, one official of the Opposite party by name Mr.Ibrahim stopped them high handedly and unloaded luggage from the flight without any fault on their part. On questioning the competency of said Ibrahim, he failed to give any authentic objection in writing as regards to their passport or visa. Said Ibrahim not to be found in the Airport thereafter and there were none to answer the Complainants, resulting in denial of entry into the flight on 16.07.2012. Due to which, complainants sustained agony and missed auspicious ceremonial function of their elder daughter at Detroit (USA) on 23.07.2012.
4) Complainants went to the office of the OP at Hyderabad on 17.07.2012 and informed about the high handedness of Mr.Ibrahim for his unauthorized interference and made complaint in writing on 18.07.2012 and also through post on 19.07.2012. The Manager (Reservations) Sri Rajashekar assured the Complainants to arrange travel with same passports and blocked the travel date on 25.07.2012. Complainants never asked to book tickets in any class but requested to reschedule the travel dates within 23rd to 25th of July 2012 without any additional charges and they asked for rescheduling their journey as per the old itinerary, to which the OP demanded Rs.31,632/- for each fare to reschedule. Complainants protested for the same and said Rajashekar was not present on 23.07.2012. Having no other go, complainants paid Rs.63,264/-, which is equal to single fare of booked tickets.
5) Complainants demanded the OP to return the amount collected, through notice dated 25.07.2012 but there was no response from the OP though received the notice on 30.07.2012. Hence the complaint praying to direct the OP to return the amount of Rs.63,264/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 01.08.2012 till payment; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the unruly behavior of unloading the luggage and collecting additional amount by way of expenses; to pay costs of the complaint and award any other reliefs.
6) The Opposite party filed written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Complainant booked flight tickets to travel on Air India flight AI 127 of 16th July 2012 vide ticket numbers 098-7101683343/342 from Hyderabad to Chicago via Delhi with onward connection from Chicago to Detroit on American airlines flight No.AA 4345/17JUL. Complainants had reported on schedule time on 16.07.2012 for check-in with each of them holding two passports (one old one and another new one) stitched together and presented to check-in counter staff of OP. On seeing the stitching of passports, the staff of OP informed that it amounts to tampering and immigration officials will object for and will not give immigration clearance for such tampered passports.
7) On the assurance and confidence of the Complainants that they would speak to immigration authorities and get clearance, they were issued boarding pass with seat No.16B/28E and 16C/28D for the sectors Hyderabad-Delhi-Chicago at 1854 hours and their 04 pieces of baggage weighing 92 kgs were checked-in and tagged up to the final destination i.e., Detroit with tag Nos.0098114759 to 762. The OP staff retained the baggage at the counter and waited for clearance by immigration of the passengers. Immigration authorities, having observed stitching of passports, directed the OP to de-check the passengers from the flight and the Complainants were not allowed to board the flight and the said authorities did not sign and stamp on the departure cards of the passengers, hence were returned to complainants. In case of objections made by the immigration authorities, the departure cards will be returned to passengers without stamping.
8) The Opposite party has no authority to stop the complainants to board the flight had they been given clearance to board the flight. It denied to have stopped the Complainants by Mr.Ibrahim. The matter was referred to Air India no fly cell, Mumbai which is manned by specialized and trained personnel for screening of travel documents proceeding to USA, who confirmed the action of immigration authorities as correct. In case, the passengers are allowed to board the flight at their risk, the US immigration authorities will impose heavy penalty of USD 1000 to 3000 on Air India for transporting the passengers with improper documents apart-from deporting the passengers to India. Accordingly, the complainants were de-checked from the system and returned their baggage, as such, no compensation is payable. The complainants, in fact, did not even pass through the immigration check which is evident from their travel documents.
9) The Complainants again approached the OP with new passports bearing Nos.K4164901/K4164895 on 23.07.2012 to re-book their tickets for travel on other dates but seats were not available in ‘W’ class on their chosen date, upon which, they requested to confirm the tickets in other classes, which were confirmed in ‘K’ class upto Delhi and in ‘B’ class from Delhi to Chicago and re-issued the tickets for onward travel on 25.07.2012 and return journey on 14.10.2012, on payment of additional charges as per rules. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.63,264/- collected towards re-booking charges as per rules, which the Complainant is being aware of as an advocate. Complainants traveled on the basis of new passports but not on old ones. Having valid travel documents is the responsibility of the passenger and the airlines is not responsible for any irregularity.
10) There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party. When the immigration authorities directed the airline officials to de-check the passenger as per the rules applicable, the immigration authorities is a proper and necessary party, as such, complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper and necessary party. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
11) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the Complainants got filed their evidence affidavit and Exs.A1 to A14 while the Opposite party got filed the evidence affidavit of one A.Rambabu, Area marketing Manager of Opposite party and marked Ex.B1 to B7.
12) The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint bearing CC No.142/2014 by orders dated 31.07.2015 for non-joinder of the necessary party i.e., Immigration Department without giving any finding on deficiency of service, as stated in paragraph No.1, supra.
13) Aggrieved by the said orders, the Appellant/Complainant preferred this appeal contending that the forum below (a) erred in not considering the problems created by Mr.Ibrahim, staff of the Respondent without any authenticity and competency who unloaded the luggage; (b) erred in not considering the immediate representation made by the Appellants; (c) erred in not considering the payment made by them under protest; (d) erred in considering the deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal setting aside the order of the District Forum.
14) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
15) It is not in dispute that the Appellants purchased air-tickets to travel to USA and in that process, they had been to the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport where they were denied entry into the flight on account of the problem that two passports were stitched, which was objectionable to the Immigration authorities, as a result of which, the Appellants were directed to de-check. On the next day, the Appellants approached the office of the Respondent and complained the happening of events in writing and also on the subsequent day by way of notice seeking reimbursement of the expenses and also damages.
16) It is argued by the learned counsel for the Respondent that there is no deficiency of service on their part as they issued the boarding passes to the Appellants but on account of the Immigration authorities observing that the passports of the Appellants were found to be stitched, new one with old one each, which would amount to tampering, have directed the Respondent airlines to de-check the passengers, which they adhered to. At the request of the Appellants to travel on the other dates, the same was arranged by the Respondent airlines and the appellants, admittedly travelled with new passports.
17) Admittedly, the Appellants performed their journey to the destined place on different dates than the actual date of booking by securing new passports, which is not in denial. This clinches the issue. If really the immigration authorities have not raised the objections as regards the existing passports (old ones) on the premise that the same were tampered (stitched), there was no need for the Appellants to obtain the new passports. As discussed by the learned forum below that since the Immigration authorities objected for the tampered passports, it necessitated for impleading the proper and necessary party, which resulted in dismissal of the complaint. Even otherwise, it was clearly contended by the Respondent/Opposite party in its counter that Immigration authorities are the proper and necessary party, which the Appellant failed to bring on record. Immigration authorities are the proper ones to answer this aspect. Though the Appellants had an opportunity to bring the immigration authorities on record, for the reasons best known, they failed to do so.
18) From the narration of the complaint as well as the evidence brought on record, no deficiency of service is brought on record against the Respondent to find fault with it. Even the Appellants failed to bring on record the immigration authorities, in this appeal before this Commission so as to consider the deficiency of service, which they failed to. Nothing is brought on record by the Appellants to prove deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent, hence, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the Appellants.
19) In the above facts and circumstances, we do not see any merit in the appeal and concur with the findings of the forum below. The point framed for consideration in paragraph No.14, supra, is answered accordingly.
20) In the result, the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated 16.09.2016
