By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the 1^st Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the loss and inconvenience, sufferings to the Complainant along with interest 12% from 17.11.2014 till realisation and to pay the cost of lawyer notice Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant obtained an Air E. Ticket on 12.11.2014 through 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties for a journey to Dubai and the journey was scheduled to 07.11.2014 by 10 AM. The Opposite parties offered prompt service. A business meet was arranged on 18.11.2014 at Dubai. The Complainant so reported to Calicut Airport by 7.30 AM on 17.11.2014. After Checking the baggage by about 8.30 AM, the officials of the Opposite party at checking counter asked the Complainant to keep away from the queue with an allegation that the Complainant was having drooping eyelids. Though the Complainant tried to convince the officials that due to lack of proper sleep in the night the eyes looked red, the officials compelled the Complainant to keep away from the queue saying that the Complainant had conjunctivitis. The Complainant was then forcefully kept away and the journey could not be done. The Complainant returned from airport on 17.11.2014 at 11.15 AM. The Complainant was insulted among gatherings and caused much mental agony. Since the Complainant's trip was blocked, the Complainant's business meet was also blocked which resulted business loss. The Complainant as return consulted an expert Doctor at Calicut and confirmed that the Complainant was not having eye disease or conjunctivitis on 17.04.2014. It was only due to the irresponsibility of the officials of 1^st Opposite Party, the Complainant suffered this much difficulties and losses. It is a clear deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties. Hence the complaint.

3. On receipt of complaint notices were issued to Opposite parties and notice served to Opposite Parties. 1^st Opposite Party appeared before the Forum and filed version. 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite parties not appeared and not filed version. Hence 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties were set exparte. In the version of 1^st Opposite party. 1^st Opposite party contended that when the Complainant approached the check in counter of 1^st Opposite party, it was noticed that the eyes of the Complainant were completely red in colour. Therefore, the Complainant was referred to the Medical Officer, Airport Authority Clinic, Calicut international Airport Clinic examined the complainant and reported that the Complainant may be suffering from conjunctivitis and since the same is contagious in nature, it was advised that the Complainant discontinue the journey and avail proper treatment. Therefore, in the light of the advice rendered by Medical Officer, Airport clinic, Calicut international Airport and in the intent of the safety of the follow passengers who were scheduled to travel in the said flight, the Complainant was off-loaded from the flight of the Opposite party. It is submitted by the 1^st Opposite Party that they are right in off-loading a passenger who is medically unfit and poses a risk to the co-passengers. All other allegations in the complaint are denied by 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party contended that there is no deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. On perusal of complaint, version, and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A7. 1^st Opposite party submitted that 1^st Opposite Party had not oral evidence. Ext.A1 is the power of attorney of complainant, Ext.A2 is the copy of visa, Ext.A3 is the copy of Air Ticket, Ext.A4 is the medical report of Comtrust Hospital, Ext.A5 is the Postal Receipt, Ext.A6 is the acknowledgment card and Ext.A7 is the copy of Lawyer notice send to the 1^st Opposite party by the Complainant. The 1^st Opposite Party contended that the reason for off-loading the complaint from travel is that the doctor appointed by the Airport Authority reported that the passenger is not fit to travel since he is having red-eye which is contagious. 1^st Opposite Party is not responsible for it and there is no deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that if Opposite Party neglects the Medical Report and board the passenger, the 1^st Opposite party will be held liable for the consequences. Hence 1^st Opposite Party off-loaded the passenger. The 1^st Opposite Party also submitted that 1^st Opposite party have no connection with the Airport Authority and Air India and Airport Authority are different. On going through Ext.A3 document, it is seen that the Medical Officer Airport Authority clinic reputed that a “Passenger off-loaded due to Red Eye”. Here the doctor not noted whether the Red eye is contagious or not. The Complainant stated that the reason for red eye is due to lack of sleep during the previous night. There are several reasons for eye becoming red and these all are not contagious. On what basis, the doctor reported off-loaded due to red eye is not seen anywhere. As per Ext.A4, the doctor from Comtrust Hospital reported that the Complainant does not have conjunctivitis. So this two reports are contradictory reports. 1^st Opposite Party is obliged to act as per Medical Officer Report. It is the Medical Officer of Airport Authority had committed error and deficiency in service by not reporting the real facts. The Forum is of the opinion that the 1^st Opposite Party is not liable for the error committed by the Medical Officer. 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite parties are travel Agencies and have no role in off-loading of passenger. The Complainant not impleaded the Airport Authority and the Medical Officer in this case who have vital role in off-loading the passenger. The complainant failed to prove any deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite Party. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found against the Complainant, the Complainant not entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 11^th day of August 2016.

Date of Filing:29.10.2015.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Basheer. Agriculture.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Power of Attorney. dt:09.02.2015.

A2. Copy of Visa.

A3. Copy of Air Ticket.

A4. Copy of Medical Report. dt:17.11.2014.

A5. Postal Receipt. dt:21.11.2014.

A6. Acknowledgment card.

A7. Copy of Letter. dt:19.11.2014.

Exhibits for the opposite Party.

Nil.