IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 19th day of November 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 60/2020 (Filed on 19-03-2020)
Petitioners : Antony Madambil Chirayil Antony,
S/o. Late Antony,
Thennattu House,
Udpayanapuram P.O.
Vaikom, Kottayam – 686 143.
(Adv. Vijimon Kuruvilla and Adv. Rayin K.R.)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Air India Limited,
Branch Office,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Collis Estate, M.G. Road,
Ravipuram, Kochi – 682 016.
2) Air India Limited,
Registered Corporate Office,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Airlines House, 113.
GurudwaraRakabganj Road,
New Delhi – 110001.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Crux of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant is a business man and permanent resident of England and his wife and children are UK citizens. Complainant’s sons marriage was scheduled to be held at St. Mary’s Church Harborne, Birmingham on 28-7-2018. The complainant who was in Kerala at that time booked a two way ticket for the sector Kochi-Delhi-Bermingham-Delhi-Kochi through www. Makemytrip.com for 25-7-2018 and 14-8-2018. However the complainant missed the scheduled flight at 20.15 from Kochi to Delhi on 25-7-2018 and thereafter he purchased another ticket of the opposite party and reached Delhi on 26-7-2018. Thereafter when the complainant reached the counter at New Delhi to catch the remaining leg of the schedule flight, complainant was informed that since he did not board the flight from Kochi, his status was marked as ‘no show’. The staff of the opposite party asked the complainant to remit Rs.17,500/- as penalty charges for the same. He was subsequently informed that he cannot board the flight to Birmingham since the time for boarding was over. When the importance of going to England is informed to the staff of the opposite party, he was instructed to make another flight booking from New –Delhi to London Heathrow for a flight leaving at 2.pm by making an additional payment of Rs.21,511/- under a fresh PNR. Thereafter even though there was a long distance drive from London to Birmingham, the complainant bought a fresh ticket for flight No. AI 111 of the opposite parties. Complainant booked the tickets, verification of visa was done, his baggage was checked in, immigration clearance of visa was done, his boarding pass was issued to the complainant. However at the time of boarding, the complainant was detained by the opposite parties and informed that he could not travel because he had stayed in a India for more than six months. Though the complainant informed that he is a citizen of India having permanent resident status of England and that there is no impediment in his staying in India the opposite party stated that complainant cannot enter United Kingdom since he had stayed in India for more than two years. It is submitted in the complaint that he had to come back to Kochi through Indigo airlines on 26-7-2018. The complainant had to spend an amount of Rs.11,000/- for this emergency flight. At the same time because of cancellation of the tickets towards England, the complainant’s return flight via Air India too cancelled. The complainant on reaching Kochi early morning of 27-7-2018 at 01.45hrs immediately booked tickets for the travel from Kochi to Manchester via Doha of Qatar Airways through Akbar Travels at a cost of Rs.49,800/-. The complainant was also forced to pay a further amount of Rs.41,360/- for the return journey from UK to Kochi on 14-9-2018 through Emirates Airlines. However in spite of the best efforts the complainant could reach Birmingham only after the marriage ceremony was concluded. All these happened due to the impertinence, laches, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.1,65,051/- including the additional amounts which he had paid for his journey . Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.1,65,051/- along with a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and cost of this litigation.
Upon notice opposite parties appeared before the commission and filed joint version as follows:
It was contended by the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable before this commission, as this commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The complainant had booked to travel from Cochin to Delhi by flight A1-047 on 25-7-2018 departing from cochin at 20:15 hr and arriving at Delhi at 23:20 hrs and then from Delhi to Birmingham by flight A1-117 on 26-7-2018 departing from Delhi at 11.20 hr and arriving at Birmingham on 18;15hr. And return flight from Birmingham to Delhi by flight A1-118 on 14-8-2018 departing from Birmingham on 19:45hrs and arriving at Delhi on 15-8-2018 at 10:30hr and from Delhi to cochin by flight AI-048 on 15-8-2018 departing from Delhi at 18:05hrs and arriving at Cochin on 21:10 hrs. The flights were booked under PNR no. JE1CO through the booking portal make my trip and the ticket no. 0982564958021 was issued by Make my Trip at the total cost of Rs.50,529/-. Thus the complainant was holding a single through ticket with four separate legs of journey. It s submitted in the version that the journey sequence of the complainant commence from Cochin on 25-7-2018 and he ought to have boarded the flight at Cochin. But, the complainant for reasons known to him, did not boarded the flight at Kochi and therefore missed the first leg of his journey. As per 3.3.1 of the conditions of carriage of the opposite parties a passenger holding a flight coupon sequence ought to travel in the fixed sequence of journey, boarding in the flight at the first point of departure. And in case he does not begin his journey at the first point, he will be marked as ‘No show ‘and will be required to pay applicable penalty in case he wants to continue the journey.
Therefore the officials of the opposite parties informed the complainant regarding the situation and asked him to get the ticket re-issued by paying applicable penalty and directed the complainant to ticketing counter to get the ticket re-issued. But instead of presenting the ticket for re-issuance the complainant on his own volition purchased a new ticket under PNR no. YQDCZ for flight AI-111, which was a one way ticket from Delhi to London on 26-7-2018 departing at 14.00 hrs and arriving at 19.00 hrs. The said ticket was issued at 10:57 hrs on 26-7-2018 and the PNR no. JEIC0 was cancelled entirely on 11:00 hrs on 26-7-2018 by the complainant. It is submitted that the departure time of AI 117 was at 12 hrs which means the complainant had ample enough time to get his ticket re-issued and board the flight. After the issuance of the new ticket the complainant reported for check –in counter. The Check in process was completed and the complainant was issued boarding card having seat no. 31j and to pieces of baggage weighing 34 kgs were handed over for check –in. the verification of passport , visa etc are conducted at check in counter and also at the boarding gate. In the instant case during the verification conducted at the boarding gate it was found that the complainant had overstayed in India for a period beyond 2 years therefore he was offloaded at 13.50 hrs. As per applicable rules, a passenger who is holding an Indian passport with indefinite visa or permanent residence permit of UK must return back to UK within 2 years of their last departure from the UK. In case failure to do so, the passenger is required to refer the matter to UK high commission and obtain a fresh visa or a letter addressed to the airline directing the airlines to accept the passenger. In the instant case complainant did not possess any of the said requisite documents hence the opposite patties could not permit the complainant to board the flight. If the airlines permit the travel of any passenger without the necessary documents, the immigration authorities after the arrival at the destination could deport the passenger and impose heavy fine on the airlines which could amount GBP 2000 per passenger. It was the duty of the complainant to carry all documents requisite for the travelling and it was only due to the failure to do so, the opposite parties were constrained to prevent the complainant from travelling on board of the flight of the opposite parties.
The averment that the complainant then purchased a ticket from Delhi to cochin by spending Rs.11,000/- and upon arrival at Cochin he purchased a ticket from Cochin to Manchester on 28-7-2018 of Quatar Airways for Rs.49,800/- and that the complainant was also forced to pay further amount of Rs.41,360/- for return journey from UK to Cochin is incorrect. The opposite parties are not aware of the travel schedule of the complainant.
The averment that the complainant could reach Birmingham only after the marriage ceremony was concluded and the complainant was a cut sorry figure before his friends and relatives is incorrect, added without any basis only to gain sympathy of the commission. The complainant is trying to mislead this commission by suppressing material facts. The claims raised by the complainant against the opposite parties are without any basis. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
Evidence of this case consists of deposition of Pw1 and exhibits A1 to A13 from the side of the complainant and deposition of the Dw1 and exhibits B1 to B7 from the side of the opposite parties.
On evaluation of complaint version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points:
- Whether this commission have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs?
Point number 1
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had booked to travel from Cochin to Delhi by flight AI-047 on 25-7-2018 departing from cochin at 20:15 hr and arriving at Delhi at 23:20 hrs and then from Delhi to Birmingham by flight AI-117 on 26-7-2018 departing from Delhi at 11.20 hr and arriving at
Birmingham on 18:15hr. And return flight from Birmingham to Delhi by flight A1-118 on 14-8-2018 departing from Birmingham on 19:45hrs and arriving at Delhi on 15-8-2018 at 10:30hr and from Delhi to Cochin by flight AI-048 on 15-8-2018 departing from Delhi at 18:05hrs and arriving at Cochin on 21:10 hrs. it is admitted by the opposite parties that the flights were booked under PNR no. JE1CO through the booking portal make my trip and the ticket no. 982564958021 was issued by make my Trip. Exhibit A4 is the slip issued by the
Make My trip to the complainant for the booking of the above said flight tickets. On perusal of exhibit A4 we can see that the complainant had paid Rs.51,328/- for the flight ticket. Exhibit A3 proves that Rs.51,328/- which is the amount paid by the complaint to the Make My Trip for booking the flight tickets of the opposite parties were transferred from the account of the complainant which is maintained by him with the Vaikom branch of the Canara Bank.
Section 11 of the consumer protection act 1986 is reproduced hereunder.
11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed “does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily
resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries
on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
We now proceed to examine separately under Clauses (a), (b)
(c) of Section 11(2) of the C.P. Act, 1986 whether this commission has territorial jurisdiction over the Complaint.
Clause (a) : This clause has no application to the facts of the case as, admittedly, not all the opposite parties reside or carry on business or have a branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this commission.
Clause (b): This Clause applies to a case where there are more Opp. Parties than one and postulates that at least any one of them should, at the time of the institution of the Complaint either actually and voluntarily reside, or carry on business, or have a branch office or personally work for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the commission where the Complaint is instituted provided further that either permission of the District commissions obtained with reference to the opposite parties. Parties who are not actually and voluntarily residing, or carrying on business or having a branch office or personally working for gain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of
commission where the Complaint is instituted or they acquiesce in the institution of the Complaint.
Now it is crystal clear that the complainant had booked the flight ticket from Vaikom which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this commission. Thus, the cause of action for this complainant is partly arosed at Vaikom from where the complainant paid the consideration for flight tickets of the opposite parties. Therefore we are of the opinion that this commission has the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and point number one is answered in favour of the complainant.
Point number 2 and 3
Admittedly the complainant did not board the flight from Kochi to Delhi on 25-7-2018. According to the complainant when the complainant reached the counter at New Delhi to catch the remaining leg of the scheduled flight, complainant was informed that since he did not board the flight from Kochi, his status was marked as ‘No Show’. Though the staff of the opposite party asked the complainant to remit Rs.17,500/- as penalty charges for the same but subsequently informed that he could not board the flight to Birmingham since the time for boarding was over. Admittedly the second leg of
the journey from Delhi to Birmingham was by flight A1-117on 26-7-2018 departing from Delhi at 11.20 hr and arriving at Birmingham on 18;15hrs. The Dw1 who is the assistant manager of the opposite parties in proof affidavit as well as in cross examination deposed that instead of presenting the ticket for re-issuance the complainant on his own volition purchased a new ticket under PNR no. YQDCZ for flight A1-111, which was a one way ticket from Delhi to London on 26-7-2018 departing at 14.01 hrs and arriving at 19.00 hrs. DW1 depose that the complainant had purchased a new ticket to London on 26-7-2018 at 10:57hrs. He reiterated in cross examination that at the time the new ticket was issued, the time for re issuing the ticket for the second leg of journey had not passed and the passenger could take it if he wanted to do so. Thus we are not inclined to accept the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant on his own choice purchased a new ticket under PNR no. YQDCZ for flight A1-11190, which was a one way ticket from Delhi to London on 26-7-2018 which is far away from his original destination.
According to the complainant he had purchased a new ticket to London by spending Rs.21,511/- for flight A1-111. Exhibit A5 is the boarding pass issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. There is no dispute on the fact that after completing the check in process and the verification of passport , visa etc. and during the verification conducted at the boarding gate the complainant was offloaded at 13.50 hrs stating that he had overstayed in India for a period beyond 2 years. The opposite parties relied upon the clause which was stated in page no. 5 of the exhibit B5 which is print out of guidelines which tells entry clearance officers and border force officers how to make decisions on returning resident applications . On perusal of said cause of exhibit B5 we can see that a person who has been absent from UK for more than 2 consecutive years, will automatically lose their indefinite leave as a matter of law. It is proved by exhibit A13 that the complainant has a resident permit of UK with indefinite leave to remain in the UK .
On a close perusal of page no. 5 of exhibit A13 we can see that the complainant had departed from Cochin airport on 28-7-2018 and after the immigration clearance at Cochin airport. Page no .3 of the exhibit A13 proves that the complainant had arrived at Manchester airport on 28-7-2018 and the immigration officer affixed a seal for the same. It is further proved that the complainant had arrived at Cochin airport on 14-9-2018. On perusal of the relevant pages of exhibitA13 passport we can’t see any endorsement to the effect that the complainant was deported from the Manchester airport for the reason that he had overstayed outside the UK for more than two years and not having the leave to enter in England. Moreover a close scrutiny of exhibit A13 passport we cannot see any entry in the same to prove that the UK high commission had issued a fresh visa or entry permit to the complainant due to the lapse of his residence permit. Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by offloading the complainant from flight A1-111 stating the reason that he had no valid residence permit or visa to enter in UK.
It is proved by exhibit A7 that the complainant had purchased a ticket through Indigo Airlines flight 6E 83 from Delhi to Kochi on 26-7-2018 . It is further proved by exhibit A8 that the complainant had purchased tickets from /Kochi to Manchester via Doha through Qatar Airways on 28-7-2018. Exhibit A10 proves that the complainant had departed from Cochin airport on 28-7-2018to Doha and exhibit A9 is the ticket from Doha to Manchester for flight no QR 27 of Qatar airways. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had arrived at Manchester on 28-7- 2018 without any hindrance.
On a thought full evaluation of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have failed to render the proper service in the standard which has been undertaken by the opposite parties to be performed in pursuance to the contract of service entered between the opposite parties and complainant.
Coming to the relief part the complainant prayed for refund of Rs.1,65,051/- towards the flight charges including the flight charges which was paid by him for journey to Kochi and from there to Manchester through different airlines. In order to prove the refund of the ticket the opposite parties produced exhibit B6 and B7 documents. According to the opposite parties they refunded the applicable refund amount for the initial ticket has been refunded on 30-4-2019 to the account of the travel agent. Thus, it was clear that there was delay of more than nine months to refund the said amount. The opposite parties did not gave any explanation for the said delay caused in refund of the amount. Exhibit A2 proves that the marriage of the complainant’s son was scheduled to be held at St. Mary’s Church Harborne, Birmingham on 28-7-2018. We already found that t the complainant had arrived at Manchester airport only on 28- 7-2018. . Exhibit A8 proves that the scheduled arrival of the Qatar airways was on 28-7-2018 at 13:35 hrs. Dw1 deposed that there was journey of 5 hrs from London to Birmingham. Thus we can infer from the available evidence that the complainant could not attend the marriage ceremony of his son. The mental anguish of a father who is unable to attend his son’s marriage is indescribable. No doubt the complainant had undergone, much tension and agony due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Even though the mental agony which was suffered by the complainant cannot be calculated in monetary terms considering the nature and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that allowing a compensation of Rs.7 lakhs would meet the ends of justice.
In these circumstances we allow the complaint and pass the following order.
- We hereby direct the first and second opposite parties to pay Rs.7,00,000/- (Seven Lakhs)only to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The first and second opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. If not complied as directed, the amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19th day of November, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Sworn statement from the side of complainant
Pw1 – Antony M.A.
Sworn statement from the side of opposite party
Dw1- Deepa Roy
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of passport in the name of complainant
A2 – Copy of invitation card
A3 – Copy of account statement from Canara Bank
A4 – Copy of slip
A5- Copy of Boarding pass
A6-Copy of residence certificate
A7-Copy of ticket from Indigo
A8 –Copy of E-ticket
A9- Ticket from Qatar Airways
A10- Ticket from Qatar Airways
A11- Postal AD card
A1(a)- Copy of legal notice
A12- Reply to legal notice
A13 – Copy of passport
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1- Printout of the screenshot of the document details published in the official website of opposite parties
B2 – True copy of citizens charter
B3 – Copy of general conditions of carriage for passengers and baggage
B4 –Copy of category 16 fare rules of the opposite party parties approved by
IATA
B5-Copy of the guideline regarding entry clearance of returning residence published by the Home Department of govt. of UK
B6 – Copy of E-ticket history
B7 - Copy of E-ticket history
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
