ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act 2019, against the opposite party (herein referred to short as OP) alleging the deficiency in service in not allowing the complainant to board the flight though she was having proper Australian VISA and for damages of Rs.1,50,000/- due to the loss suffered in cancelling her entire onward trip and for Rs.5,00,000/- compensation for negligence service on the part of OP and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for causing her mental agony, deficiency in service and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Commission deems fit and under circumstances.

2.     The brief facts of the case are that:- the complainant wanted to travel during the vacation from April 8 2019 to April 18 2019 to Spain and Portugal along with her husband who was already in  Europe to receive her . She booked a ticket with OP flight.  Her journey was to take place on 08.04.2019 from Bangalore to Barcelona (Spain via London) on BA 0118/BA0406 and return journey from Lisbon (Portugal to Bangalore via London to Bangalore) on BA /0499/BA0119.  She reached the Bangalore Airport on 08.04.2019. The British airways authorities denied her the boarding to the flight on the ground that she was not having UK transit Visa. Hence she had to cancel the entire trip incurring heavy loss. Her husband Dananjay Ramashetty who was already in Barcelona to receive her in the Airport and wanted to travel with her for further trip for 10 days had to cancel and return back to India. That she has produced the bills, payments and receipts and travel details of the including of some cancellation made by her husband and reschedule to Europe to India which costed in all Rs.1,50,000/- and also she lost her live which was sanctioned by her employer. Herself and her husband were depressed a lot and, had to stay in their home during the said holidays. She had to write a letter and correspondence with the British airways authorities and they after enquiring with the authorities, admitted that the British Airways operator at Bangalore airport wrongly believed that the passenger required UK transit Visa and did a mistake by denying the boarding for travel. Afterwards they sent a regret letter and informed that they are going to compensate her by the flight ticket to an extent of Rs.600 euros that means, Rs.48,838/- and requested her to accept the said offer which she did not agree as she had suffered monetary loss in cancellation of the booking made her for the further trip and also had to suffer mentally and physically and hence prayed the forum to allow the complaint.

3.     Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the commission and filed version and contended that there is no deficiency on the part of OP in not allowing the complaint to board the flight and rightly disallowed her to check in the flight as she was not holding a direct airside transit visa (DATV) for the united kingdom. All Indian Nationals transit through United Kingdom, required DATV unless they come under the exceptions listed on the UK government website. It is the responsibility of the traveller to have all legal valid documents and visas to transfer in the Host country and shortcoming would entitle the airlines to deny the boarding of the flight. 

4.     Further the condition of the carrier of the OP is printed on the ticket and Article 13 clearly indicate that the carrier cannot be held responsible if the passenger do not have necessary documents, VISA for entry to the transfer to the host country, and in case the same is violated, carrier would be penalized heavily.  The check-in agent at Bangalore had acted within the powers to deny the boarding as the complainant did not have DATV for the UK nor did she produce any documents to show that she was falling within the exemptions.  There is no deficiency in the service.  OP has also averred that it has already refunded the full ticket cost on 04.04.2019 itself and offered to compensation to the complainant with 600 Europe’s as per regulation, EC 261/2004 which the complainant  refunded to receive.

5.     It has also mentioned in  the versions the various conditions under which the  direct airside transit visa and direct land side direct visa  is required VISA and who are all exempted from the said VISA. In view of the said conditions, since the complainant did not have any exemptions, supporting the action of their agent at Bangalore airport prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.

6.     In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both parties filed their affidavit evidence and also documents produced. Heard the arguments. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

7.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO 1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE

POINT NO 2: PARTLY OF THE AFFIRMATIVE.

                       For the following.

REASONS

POINT NO 1 :-

8.     On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is not in dispute that the complainant purchased air ticket from OP to travel to Barcelona and Lisbon in Portugal through the flight operated by OP and back to Bangalore. It is also not in dispute that she was denied boarding to the flight No.BA 0118 to London at Bangalore Airport on 08.04.2019 whereby she was denied an opportunity to carry on her onward tour to Barcelona and Lisbon in Portugal, wherein, her husband was waiting at Barcelona to receive her.

9.     It is her contention that she was denied boarding on the sole ground that she was not having transit visa at UK. According to her the said transit visa is not required for the Indian citizen who have Australian Visa. She has produced the Visa issued by Australian Government wherein the same was granted to her and the grant date is 18.09.2018 and should arrive before 18.09.2019. The length of stay is three months from the date of each arrival and travel period is multiple entries. She has also produced who are exempted to have transit visa at London. It is made  clear that you don’t need the visa is one of the following. A Visa for Canada, Newzeland, Australia or the USA (this can be used for travel to any country) This means that the complainant is exempt from the requirement of DATV(Direct Airside Transcit Visa)

10.   Though OP has supported the act of its manager or agent at Bangalore Airport in denying the boaring to the complainant in the version filed an internal enquiry was held wherein OP has clearly and in unequivocal terms has admitted that:

“28 June 2019

Mrs Sreelaxmi Dhanjay

By Email:kullu72dhanu@gmail.com.

Dear Mrs Dhananjay

BA118-BLR/LHR-8 April 2019

I have now completed my investigation into your complaint in which you stated that you were denied boarding to flight BA118 from BLR to LHR on 8 April 2019 as you did not have a transit visa for the UK

I Can assure that you British Airways never wishes to deny boarding to its customers, but has to comply with a myriad of regulation imposed on it by various jurisdictions to which it operates. On this occasion, however it appears that the handling agents at Kempegowda incorrectly believed that you required a UK Transit Vis

In the event that a passenger is incorrectly denied boarding, there is a right to fixed compensation under EC Regulation 261/2004. The amount of compensation is based on the distance from point of departure to the Intended final destination on the booking. In regards to your booking, the applicable amount of compensation would be $600 (which in Indian Rupees is 46,838 Rupees). Therefore, I can offer you 46,838 Rupees in full and final settlement of your complaint.

If you wish to accept this offer, Please can you sign and return the attached release form.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Moran.”

11.   When this is taken into consideration, there is no necessity for this commission to go through the evidence and arguments of the OP.  Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and also negligence on the part of the agent of the OP who was working at that time at Bangalore Airport.

12.   The complainant having not agreed for the offer made by OP that “they are ready to pay a compensation of Rs.46,838/- Indian rupees equallant to Rs.600/- euros as per their provision” has filed this complaint seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the expenses she has met on the ground that herself and her husband had to cancel the onward journey tickets, the hotel accommodation expenses and travelling expenses in the said countries, and also for compensation for Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,00,000/- for the shock, mental depression, loss of time suffered.  It is quite but natural that her entire trip to Barcelona and in  (Lisban)Portugal along with her husband got disrupted.  He has produced Ex.P5 self-made statement showing the particulars of expenses she had incurred.  To and fro flight charges Rs.46,000/- Taxi from and to airport at Bangalore Rs.6,000/-, Sentzen visa and VFS processing charges Rs.8,000/- her husband’s flight cancellation/reschedule charges Rs.10,000/-, the flight charges which was not refundable at destination Rs.15,000/-, Hotel accommodation charges paid from 09.04. to 18.04. Rs.25,000/-, shopping essential made Rs.25,000/-. Travel insurance for the trip Rs.2,000/- , bus fares at destination Rs.3,500/-.

13.   She has also produced the hotel accommodation payments as per Ex.P6. It is to be noted here that, there is no evidence placed either by the complainant or by the OP that the said amount has been refund or not.  She has produced the documents i.e. Bank statement for having paid the amount through her bank. Probably atleast 50% of the amount would have been refunded to her on account of the last minute hazel which she faced.  In view of this and infurtherance of the OP retuning the entire fare which the complainant has not disputed we are of the opinion that as OP has agreed to pay Rs.46,000/- as compensation we hereby direct OP to pay the said amount along with interest at 12% on the said amount from 08.04.2019 till payment of the entire amount. Further in view of the lack of clear cut evidence regarding refunding or not refunding the amount which the complainant has spent, we are of the opinion that 50% of the claim made in the complaint i.e. 50% of Rs.1,50,000/- if ordered to be paid to the complainant by OP would meet the ends of justice.  Further since the complainant was put to mental agony, hardship and travel related hardship and inconvenience we hereby direct Ops to pay damages by way of compensation a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses on the principle that compensation should be just, proper and reasonable and it should not be bonanza or lottery for the complainant.  Hence we answer POINT NO 2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. OP No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.46,000/- to the complainant along with interest at 12% per annum from 08.04.2019 till payment of the entire amount and further directed to pay 50% of the claim made in the complaint i.e. 50% of Rs.1,50,000/- from OPs.
3. Further OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the litigation and other expenses to the complainant.
4. OPs are further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 20^TH day of August 2022)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

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

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the Flight ticket.

Ex P2: Copy of the compensation offered by British airlines.

Ex. P3: Copy of the letters dted:31.05.2019 & 10.09.2019.

Ex P4: Copy of the expenses particulars.

Ex P5: Copy of tickets booked from Barcelona to Malanga.

Ex P6: Copy of flight ticket from Barcelona to Malanga.

Ex P7: Copy of the traveller information.

Ex P8: Copy of the registration receipt.

Ex P9: Copy of the transaction details.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Mr.Ajay James, Regional commercial Mangare of OP

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the accessible version.

Ex R2: Copy of the general conditions of carriage.

Ex R3: Copy of the regulations

MEMBER         MEMBER        PRESIDENT

RAK*