DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/154/2022.

Date of Institution   : 05.02.2018/29.11.2021.

Date of Decision    : 22.06.2022.

 

Harjinder Singh Randhawa aged about 28 years son of Sh. Amrik Singh resident of Village Dhariwal Kaler, Ajnala, Amritsar. 

                …Complainant Versus

Air India through its Manager/person incharge, Amritsar, M.K. International Hotel, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, 39-A Court Road, Amritsar. 

                    …Opposite Party

 

Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.

 

Present: Sh. Naresh Maini Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Bikramm Jit Singh Arri Adv counsel for opposite party. 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against the Amritsar Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred as opposite party)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is holding Indian Passport bearing No. Z2606693 and is working as a TRITULANTE OCEAN MARINE by the Vessel/Barge TOG MOR shipping agent in Mexico. The complainant is the regular visitor to his native place and he has been hiring the services of AIR INDIA for his traveling. It is alleged that on 28.7.2017 the complainant was flying to Tampico (Mexico) from Amritsar to Delhi to Paris to Mexico City and he hired the Indian Air Line Flight from Amritsar to Delhi. The complainant has having immigration clearance as well as holding all valid documents including valid SCHENGEN VISA, but the complainant was harassed unnecessarily and without any reason by one S.K. HENEJ an employee of Air India at Delhi Airport who detained and delayed the boarding of the complainant. It is further alleged that on 31.5.2017 when the complainant was flying to TAMPICO (Mexico) from Amritsar to Delhi to London to Mexico City to Tampico and had a Indian Airline flight from Amritsar to Delhi to London.  The immigration of the complainant was cleared at Amritsar but inspite of that the complainant was illegally detained by the said S.K HANEJ who tempered/torned the passport of the complainant. Due to the above said act of the opposite party the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- being as compensation for mental agony and harassment.  

ii) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled may also be awarded to him.    

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable, act and conduct, not come with clean hands etc. On merits, opposite party denied the case of the complainant. It is further denied that the complainant at that time was holding all valid documents including valid Schengen Visa. It is further submitted that the complainant is trying to mislead the Forum (now Commission) by mis-representation of facts according to his own choice and convenience. When the complainant was asked whether he had Visa for London, he was unable to show the same. Infact the complainant was not having Visa for London(UK) and it was found by the staff of Air India during enquiry that his passport was handed over to the Crew to travel in the next flight for Maxico. It is submitted that Article 14 Administrative Formalities of Air India Limited General Conditions of Carriage for Passengers & Baggage, are very much relevant and applicable to this case. It is further submitted that according to the Rules of UK, if any person/passenger who is not having Visa for any country illegally, then in that case the compensation will be imposed upon Air India. As such, the passport of the complainant was handed over to Crew to travel in the next flight for Maxico. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-19 and closed the evidence.  

5. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ashok Singh Station Manager Ex.O.P1, copy of the general condition of carriage for passenger of Air India consisting of 3 pages Ex.O.P2 and closed the evidence.    

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. Written arguments filed by the parties.

7. The complainant alleged in the complaint that the  complainant has having immigration clearance as well as holding all valid documents including valid SCHENGEN VISA, but the complainant was harassed unnecessarily and without any reason by one S.K. HENEJ an employee of Air India at Delhi Airport who detained and delayed the boarding of the complainant. It is further alleged by the complainant that on 31.5.2017 when the complainant was flying to TAMPICO (Mexico) from Amritsar to Delhi to London to Mexico City to Tampico and had a Indian Airline flight from Amritsar to Delhi to London. The complainant further alleged that the immigration of the complainant was cleared at Amritsar but inspite of that the complainant was illegally detained by the said S.K HANEJ who tempered/torned the passport of the complainant. Due to the above said act of the opposite party the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. 

8. On the other hand, the opposite party appeared and filed written version and submitted that  the complainant is trying to mislead the Forum (now Commission) by mis-representation of facts according to his own choice and convenience. It is further alleged that when the complainant was asked whether he had Visa for London, he was unable to show the same. Infact the complainant was not having Visa for London(UK) and it was found by the staff of Air India during enquiry that his passport was handed over to the Crew to travel in the next flight for Maxico. The opposite party alleged that Article 14 Administrative Formalities of Air India Limited General Conditions of Carriage for Passengers & Baggage, are very much relevant and applicable to this case. All other allegations of the complaint are denied by the opposite party. 

9. The complainant has produced several documents to prove that he was flying Amritsar to Tampico (Mexico). Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was unnecessarily harassed by the employee of Air India. Ld. Counsel for the complainant also argued that the passport of the complainant was tempered/torned by the employee of opposite party, therefore the complainant is entitled for compensation. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party argued that infact the staff of Air India had stopped the complainant for making proper checking and enquiry regarding his documents including Visa etc., which is their official duty and they had been performing their official duty in due course in due discharge, as such the question of detaining the complainant unnecessarily or harassing him in any manner does not arise at all. Ld. Counsel for opposite party argued that the complainant is trying to mislead and mis-representation of facts according to his own choice and convenience. Ld. Counsel for opposite party further argued that when the complainant was asked whether he had Visa/proper Visa for London, he was unable to show and provide Visa for London. Ld. Counsel for opposite party further argued that infact the complainant was not having Visa for London and it was found by the staff of Air India during enquiry of the complainant. Therefore, his passport was handed over to the Crew to travel in the next flight for Mexico. Ld. Counsel for opposite party denied that the employee of Air India had tempered/torned the passport of the complainant. Ld. Counsel for opposite party argued that as per Article 14 of the above mentioned rules the opposite party can check the documents of the complainant. The opposite party has produced the copy of rules of Article 14 as Ex.O.P2. Ld. Counsel for opposite party further argued that if the passport of the complainant was tempered/torned by the employee of opposite party then the complainant would not have been able to travel in the next flight, whereas he had traveled in the next flight which shows that his passport was never torned or tempered by the employee of opposite party. It is established that the opposite party had performed his duties as per rules and regulations and the allegations regarding the tempered/torned the passport of the complainant are false and the complainant failed to prove the allegations mentioned in the complaint as the complainant was traveled to Mexico on the next flight. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the present complaint and the same is dismissed without cost. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties free of costs by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to District Consumer Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       22nd Day of June, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member