DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.77/2016

Dr. Sanjeev Kumar

S/o Shri M.M. Lal

Dr. Srividya Narayan

W/o Shri Sanjeev Kumar

Both: R/o 165, Fendalton Road,

            Christchurch New Zealand 8052

Also At:- House No.636, Sector-9,

                  Vasundhara, Ghaziabad U.P

                  201012                                                  

                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

Air India Ltd.

3 Safdarjung, Airport

Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi-110003

Also at:-

Airlines House, 113,

Gurdwara, RakabGanj, Road,

New Delhi-110001

Through CMD

        ….Opposite Party

            Date of Institution    :    15.03.2016    

            Date of Order            :    12.05.2022  

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member:  Ms. Kiran Kaushal

1.      Complainants have requested to pass an award for the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-  towards cost of  tickets alongwith interest @18%  per annum; a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony & deficiency in service;  and cost of litigation etc.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the Complainants were to return Christchurch via Melbourne. The Complainants were having confirmed tickets vide flight No. AI308, and paid a sum of $3696.34 for both the tickets for return journey. Being the British Citizen, they did not require VISA for traveling 180 countries including Australia. It can be seen at the website of Australia meant for this purpose. The same is exhibited as Annexure-B. The Complainants were due to fly to Christchurch via Melbourne. When they were checking-in with Air India at IGI Airport, New Delhi, they were told by the staff of the Air India (hereinafter referred to as OP) that they were getting a “Do Not Board” message on their computer system on having swiped the passports. The staff on duty  at counter discussed with Australian immigration helpline and got a verbal clearance but computer system did not update and continued to reflect “Do Not Board” message. The OP’s staff denied the Complainants to board the Air Craft. The reason given on communication documents provided was “ unable clearance from Australian Embassy.”

3.      Later on, the Complainants discussed the issue with Australian High Commissions, New Delhi and were told that  there was neither a need for visa nor anything wrong with passport of the Complainants. The Airline could have easily overruled the “Do Not Board” message on examining the requisite documents. Copy of reply is annexed at Annexure –B.  It is noteworthy to establish this fact that they flew from New Delhi from Christchurch (New Zealand) via Sydney (Australia) on 01.11.2015 but they did not encounter any problem at Sydney Airport. No transit visa was required. The Complainants were put to unnecessary financial burden and financial loss by the OP and they had to buy fresh tickets to come to Christchurch via Singapore on 21.11.2015 and they had to pay Rs.1,25,692.00/-. It was also stated that they had to pay Rs. 6,000/- as taxi fare additionally, which was not required, had the staff of OP cooperated with them. The Complainant also visited the office of OP at Safdarjung Airport but no satisfactorily reply was advanced thereto also. As regard to refund the tickets, they were told to apply online through booking agency. They lodged a Complainant on website of the OP but no reply was received till date. As such, the Complainant averred that they suffered immensely and put to unnecessary financial burden. The same indicates that there is unfair trade practice and there is clear cut deficiency in service. The uncooperative, irresponsive and callous attitude of the staff of OP had resulted into grave loss and injustice. Hence, the complaint.

4.      The OP, on the other hand, made preliminary submissions stating that the Complainant come into contact with check-in staff at 11.09 hrs on  20.11.2015 which  is almost an hour late in case of reporting for international flight. Be that as it may, the staff could not complete the process on account of “Do Not Board” message on their computer system. In such situations, the counter staff has two options, firstly to ask the Complainants for  Electronic Travel Agency (ETA), which is issued by the country to which passenger is travelling and does not require visa being British Citizen, in such cases.  In this case, the Complainants were not carrying Electronic Travel Authority. The second option to speak to the concerned country embassy authorities in Delhi and after seeking instructions from, they overrule the “Do Not Board” message and allow the Complainants to board the aircraft. The staff at counter could not contact Australian Authorities in Delhi at this short notice and message could not be overruled by the check-in staff at their own. As a result of abortive  efforts by staff, the Complainants had to be deleted from the flight at 12:28/12:29 hrs by agent code 6413 for want of proper documents as required under Article 7 & 8.1.6 of the IATA General Conditions of Carriage. The regulation are annexed at Annexure R-1. The failure to comply with such requirement may result in cancelling of any onward/ return reservation. The OP did try their best to help the Complainants but was bound by the IATA General Conditions as mentioning above and as such, the OP was not at fault or deficiency of service. From the above, it is  reduced to mainly on two grounds under which, there were not allowed to fly (1) The Airline is bound by the IATA General Conditions of carriage (Passenger & Baggage), if they overrule the “Do Not Board” message at their own. The failure it comply with any such requirement may result in cancellation of any onward/return reservations and (2) The Complainants were not carrying the Electronic Travel Authority issued by Australian Embassy.

5.      Both the parties filed evidence-in-affidavit and Written Submission. Rejoinder is on record so is the Written Statement. Arguments were heard and concluded on behalf of Complainants.

6.      This Commission has looked into the issues raised by the respective parties. It is apt to examine the points/issues as raised by the OP in its reply as mentioned above. The OP has contended that the situation as was mentioned that had the Complainants carrying the Electronic Travel Authority, the Check-in staff would have allowed them to board the flight but since they did not possess the same. The Complainants had countered the same in its rejoinder stating therein that the OP failed to understand difference between transiting via Australia and visiting Australia Electronic Travel Authority is required for visiting Australia. The charge of Complainants is that check-in staff was poor in communication with Australian immigration helpline. The Complainant also denied the requirement of IATA General Conditions of carriage (Passenger & Baggage) as they have all necessary documents. It is observed from the Australian High Commission’s reply that being British Citizens, the Complainant did not need transit visa  as they were to remain on airport around two hours only. The OP also contended that the Complainants reached the airport one hour late, hence, the time available with check-in staff was short, so, the requirement of overruling the “Do Not Board” message with Australian Authority could not be completed. On this, it was submitted  through  written submission that before January, 2016 the reporting time for Air India was 2 hours 30 minutes. It was increased to 3 hours only from January, 2016 onwards. No credible evidence was advanced by the OP in this regard.

7.     Considering all facts and circumstances in the case, this Commission feels that this situation  created at Check-in counter could have been avoided, had the staff of OP would have handled the same effectively. To that extent, it is felt that the OP is found deficient in services & negligent and accordingly, it is directed to refund the amount, which was used for purchase of earlier tickets i.e $3694.34 (at the current rate) alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of boarding i.e 20.11.2015 and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and litigation charges within three months from the date of receipt of this order failing which rate of interest shall be charged @9% till it realization. 

File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.