Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/534

THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR CALICUT AIRPORT - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADEEP NABEEL AHAMMED - Opp.Party(s)

S D ASOKAN

28 Mar 2016

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NOs. 534/14, 553/14, 752/15   

 

JUDGMENT DATED:28.03.2016

 

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

Appeal No.534/14

 

 

1. The Airport Director,

   Calicut Airport, Calicut Airport P.O,

   Karippur, Malappuram District,

   PIN-673 647,R/by Anoop J.R,

   Assistant Manager (Operations),

   Airpots Authority of India, 

   Calicut Airport, Calicut Airport P.O,

   Karippur, Malappuram District,

   PIN-673 647.   

                                                                                       -Appellants

2. The Airport Authority of India,

    Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdurjung Airport,                        

    New Delhi, Pin-110 003.

    R/by Anoop J.R,

   Assistant Manager (Operations),

   Airpots Authority of India, 

   Calicut Airport, Calicut Airport P.O,

   Karippur, Malappuram District,

   PIN-673 647.

 

(By Adv: Sri. S.D. Asokan)

                                                                                                                             Vs.

                                     

1. Adeep Nabeel Ahammed alias  Assher,

    S/o.Dr.Thahirakukkdi,

    Baikkampadi, Near Mangalore,

    Pin- 407 770, Karnataka State.

 

(By Adv: M/s Menon & Pai)

                                                                                      -Respondents

2  The Senior Manager, Air India,

    Calicut Airport,

    Calicut Airport P.O, Karippur, Malappuram,

    PIN-673 647.

 

3. Deputy Superintendent of Police,

    Emigration Department,

    Calicut Airport, Calicut Airport P.O,

    Kaipur, Malappuram.

 

Appeal No.553/14   

 

The Senior Manager, Air India,

 Calicut International Airport,

Calicut Airport P.O, Karippur,

Malappuram  District.                                         -        Appellant           

 

(By Adv: M/s Menon & Pai)

                                                                                              

        Vs.

 

1.Adeep Nabeel Ahammed ,

    S/o.Dr.Thahirakukkdi,

    Baikkampadi, Near Mangalore,

    Pin- 407 770, Karnataka State.

 

 

2.  The Airport Director,

   Calicut Airport, Calicut Airport P.O,

   Karippur, Malappuram.

 

 

 

3. The Airport Authority of India,

    Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan,                                                 -      Respondents

   Safdurjung Airport,  New Delhi-110 003.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Sujin & S.D. Asokan)

 

4. Deputy Superintendent of Police,

    Emigration Department,

    Calicut International Airport,

    Calicut Airport (P.O),

    Karippur, Malappuram.

 

Appeal No.752/15   

 

    Deputy Superintendent of Police,

    Emigration Department,

    Calicut International Airport,

    Calicut Airport (P.O)

    Karippur, Malappuram.                                    -        Appellant                      

 

(By Adv: Sri.M. Nizarudeen)

                                                                            

Vs.

 

1. Adeep Nabeel Ahammed @ Assher,

    S/o.Dr.Thahirakukkdi,

    Baikkampadi, Near Mangalore,

    Pin- 407 770, Karnataka State.

 

3  The Airport Director,

    Calicut Airport, Calicut Airport P.O,

    Karippur, Malappuram.

 

2. The Airport Authority of India,                       -       Respondents

    New Delhi.

 

4. The Senior Manager, Air India,

   Calicut International Airport,

  Calicut Airport P.O, Karippur, Malappuram.

 

 

 

 

COMMON JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

All these 3 appeals arise out of an order in C.C.214/2010 dated 21/08/2014 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malapuram.  Appeal 534/14 is filed by the 1^st opposite party, Appeal 553/14  is filed by the 3^rd  opposite party and Appeal 752/15 is filed by the 4^th  opposite party.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief  is this:

The complainant was aged 12 and was a minor on 06/04/2002.  On that day he was travelling from Calicut International Airport to Jeddah in Flight No.881E of Air India to meet his mother who is employed in Saudi Arabia.  He was holding the Indian Passport, Tickets, Visa and all other travel documents.  He was taken to Karipur Airport by his uncle and was entrusted with the airport authorities.  His documents were inspected and accepted at the point of embarkation by the concerned officials.  When the flight arrived at Jeddah, he was not allowed to go out of the airport since the Airport Authorities in Jeddah raised objections on the ground that his passport was not stamped with visa.  He was kept in the airport at Jeddah for the whole day and was sent back to the Calicut Airport on the next day.   The Airport Authorities at Jeddah imposed a fine of Rs.30,000/- to the Calicut Airport Authority.  The uncle of the complainant was forced to sign an undertaking for the payment of the said amount of Rs.30,000/-.  Then only the child was released from the Calicut Airport.  Therefore complainant filed this complaint within two years after attaining majority claiming the compensation of Rs.5,57,792/-.

 

3.      Opposite parties 1 and 2 are Airport Director of Calicut Airport and Airport Authority of India, New Delhi respectively.  They in their version contented thus before the Forum:  Stamping of visa and verification of documents are the job of emigration department which is the statutory authority working in all international airport.  They are the person to clear the emigration formalities.  Therefore if at all there is any deficiency in service it is on the part of Air India, the 3^rd opposite party and emigration department.

 

4.      Third opposite party Senior Manager, Air India, Calicut Airport though entered appearance did not file any version before the Forum,  The 4^th opposite party the DYSP of Emigration Dept, Calicut Airport in his version contented thus before the Forum.  In case of all passenger flying by an aircraft it is the airlines that issues the boarding pass after verifying the documents.  After that the passengers are asked to go through immigration and customs checking.   Boarding pass and travelling documents are checked by the airlines while before the passengers are allowed to enter the aircraft.  In the case of any unaccompanied minor the airlines take the responsibility for safe travel of the minor.  The staff of airlines would take the minor to the immigration and the customs checkups and would board him in the flight.  After reaching the destination the airlines would get clearance from the immigration and the customs for the minor.  Stamping of the visa on the passport is not compulsory.  Therefore there is no deficiency of service on their part.

 

5.      The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked as Ext.A1 to A7 before the Forum.  On the part of the opposite parties DW1 was examined.  On an appreciation of evidence forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed to the opposite parties 3 and 4 to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and directed first opposite party to refund Rs.30,000/-.  The opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 have come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

6.      Heard both the counsels in all these 3 appeals.  As these appeals were filed by the opposite parties 1,3 and 4 of the same complaint challenging the same order, all these appeals are disposed of by a common order.

7.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1, 3 and 4?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

 

8.      The opposite parties mainly contented that the complaint is barred by limitation.  The incident occurred on 06/04/2002.  The complainant was filed on November 9, 2010.  It is seen from Ext.A7 copy of  the passport of the complainant was aged 12 at the time of incident (Date of birth June 09, 1990).  He filed the complaint within 2 years of attaining majority.  Therefore we hold that complaint is not barred by limitation.

 

9.      It is admitted by the opposite parties the complainant who was a minor was travelling from Calicut International Airport to Jeddah in Flight No.881E of Air India on 06/04/2002 to meet his mother who is employed in Saudi Arabia and that he was detained at  Airport in Jeddah, on the ground that his passport was not stamped with the VISA and that he was sent back to the Calicut Airport on the next day. It was also not disputed that Airport Authority, Jeddah imposed a fine Rs.30,000/- to Calicut Airport Authority which was recovered from the complainant.

 

10.    The case of the opposite parties 1 and 2, Airport Director, Calicut Airport and Airport Authority of India, New Delhi is that the stamping of VISA and verification of documents are the job of the immigration department, that is, 4^th opposite party and the documents have to be verified by the Air India, the 3^rd OP.  The 3^rd OP did not contest the matter before the Forum. 

 

11.    The 4^th OP the Emigration Department contented that it is for the Authorities of Air India to check the correctness of the documents for which they are not responsible.  It is clear from the above fact that 4^th OP was negligent in not stamping the VISA in the passport of the complainant and the 3^rd OP is also negligent in not verifying the same.  Therefore we confirm the finding of the Forum is there is deficiency of service  on the part of the 3^rd and 4^th opposite party.

 

12.    Forum directed the 1^st opposite party to refund Rs.30,000/- to  the complainant and also directed the opposite parties 3 and 4 to pay a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.  We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

13.    There is another aspect in this case the Forum has order to pay Rs.1 lakh of the compensation awarded to the Child Welfare Scheme of Chief Ministers Relief fund.  There is no provisions   for awarding such payment to the  said welfare fund.  Therefore the direction of the Forum to pay Rs.1 lakh to the Child Welfare Scheme of Chief Ministers Relief Fund is set aside.   Entire amount of compensation of Rs.5 lakh shall be paid to the complainant.

In the result all these three appeals are dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.

 

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

VL.