Haryana

Karnal

CC/169/2021

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air Vistara , Tata Sia Air Lines Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Kanav Deep Singh

21 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 169 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.19.03.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:21.10.2022

 

Sandeep Kumar son of Shri Surjeet Singh, resident of house no.726, first floor, sector-13, extension, Karnal (Aadhar no.7358 7695 0320)

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Air Vistara, Tata Sia Air Lines Ltd., Jeevan Bharti Tower-1, 10^th floor 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-11001, through its authorized signatory.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Kanav Deep Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Govind Chauhan, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant alongwith his wife namely Reena plan to visit U.K. on tourist visa and after getting his tourist visa the complainant have purchased Airlines ticket bearing booking reference no.LE49NR for flying on 22, December, 2020 departure at 10.15 a.m from Amritsar and reaching London at 5.55 p.m. on 22, December, 2020 from the OP for Rs.99,000/-. When the complainant called the call center of OP, the representative of OP informed the complainant that there were some restriction on fly to U.K. from India as such it was advised by the representative of OP that complainant should get his air ticket extended. On that advise complainant have extended the air ticket to 11.02.2021 having departure at 10.15 a.m from Amritsar and reaching London at 5.55 p.m. on 11.02.2021 bearing same reference number for that purpose complainant has also paid Rs.4500/- as ticket extension charges. Complainant and his wife have reached Amritsar Airport on 11.02.2021 to board flight no.UK694 Vistara Air Lines. The staff from the Airlines have provided boarding passes till Heathrow Airport London to the complainant and have also taken all the luggage by putting tags on the bags of Heathrow Airport London and informed the complainant that bags will be received by the complainant at Heathrow Airport London. It is further averred that the abovesaid air ticket flight was the connecting flight i.e. Amritsar-Delhi-U.K., so OP has provided boarding passes and luggage tags to the complainant till Heathrow Airport London at the time of boarding flight at Amritsar Airport only. The flight was delayed for three hours and have reached Delhi at 2.30 p.m. After reaching the Delhi airport when complainant and his wife reached the immigration office the official from the immigration facility of IGI Airport Delhi asked the complainant that how come they have reached immigration of Delhi Airport from Amritsar as it is very well informed to all the airlines not to make tourist visa holder of U.K. to board a connecting flight of U.K. from any airport of India. The official from immigration have also called the concerned person of the OP at immigration and scolded him by making him responsible for the refusal for the entry of the complainant at immigration office in IGI Airport New Delhi. The official of the OP have started making lame excuses to the immigration office by admitting their mistake that they have given false information to the complainant regarding the transit policy of United Kingdom. The official of the OP have also assured the complainant that his payment for air ticket will be refunded to him or he will be given option to extend this ticket for his future travel if any. The complainant and his wife were very disheartened with the fact that they were traveling for the very first time and they were getting a very bitter experience. It is further averred that if complainant would be informed by the OP regarding the immigration policy of United Kingdom. The complainant and his wife would not have travelled and would not have boarded flight from Amritsar. After coming out from the airport without boarding the flight the complainant and  his wife have also paid Rs.6000/- to the taxi driver for coming back to their house.  After returning their house the complainant has called the airline office several time but they did not listen to the complainant. Complainant have also sent an email to the OP on 05.03.2021, but OP has refused to reimburse or to compensate complainant and his wife. Due to this act and conduct of OPs, the complainant suffered mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss. OP not only harassed the complainant and his wife but also have acted in very unprofessional manner by not refunding the amount received by them because of which they have not travelled yet.  In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; territorial jurisdiction an concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant had booked 2 tickets through the travel agent for travel on 11.02.2021 from Amritsar to Delhi on Vistara flight UK 694 scheduled to depart (STD) at 10.15 hours (flight 1) and from Delhi to London on Vistara flight UK 17 with STD of 14.00 hours (Flight 2) and from London to Delhi on Vistara Flight UK 018 scheduled to depart on 10.03.2021 at 20.50 hours (Flight 3) having PNR LE49NR vide booking reference no.2283857168709. It is further pleaded that  complainant was denied boarding at Delhi Airport on the advice of the Airport Liaison Officer of the British High Commission as the complainant was unable to justify his purpose of travel. The complainant was off loaded from the flight on the basis of profiling. The British High Commission advised the OP to refer the complainant to them. Further, upon denial of boarding, OP had advised the complainant to contact British High Commission in February itself to resolve the issue, but complainant failed to contact the same. Complainant contacted the OP via email dated 05.03.2021, then also OP advised vide email dated 05.03.2021 to contact the respective Embassy as offloading the complainant was not the decision taken by the OP. The decision to deny boarding to the complainant was taken by British High Commission and the OP was not in a position to question their authority and hence, is not liable to refund any amount to the complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant had booked the ticket through travel agent and hence, was advised to claim the refund as per fare rules from the travel agent but the complainant has failed to do the same and hence no refund has been processed in favour of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of passport of complainant Ex.C1, copy of passport of Reena Rani Ex.C2, copy of visa U.K. complainant and his wife Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, copy of application for entry clearance to the U.K. Ex.C5, copy of medical OPD complainant and his wife Ex.C6 and Ex.C7, copy of easy hotel booking Ex.C8, copy of Queens Park Hotel Booking Ex.C9, copy of unique card of complainant and his wife Ex.C10 and Ex.C12, copy of insurance of complainant and his wife Ex.C11 and Ex.C13,  copy of taxi payment receipt Ex.C14, copy of email Ex.C15, copy of email Ex.C16, copy of affidavit Ex.C17, affidavit of Deepak Kaharia Ex.C18, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C19 and closed the evidence on 23.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr. Shashank Jain, Assistant Vice President (legal) Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 25.03.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant alongwith his wife namely Reena plan to visit U.K. on tourist visa and after getting his tourist visa the complainant have purchased Airlines ticket from the OP for Rs.99,000/-. Complainant and his wife have reached Amritsar Airport on 11.02.2021 to board the flight of OP. The said flight was the connecting flight i.e. Amritsar-Delhi-U.K., so OP has provided boarding passes and luggage tags to the complainant till Heathrow Airport London at the time of boarding flight at Amritsar Airport only. After reaching the Delhi airport when complainant and his wife reached the immigration office, the official from the immigration facility of IGI Airport Delhi asked the complainant that how come they have reached immigration of Delhi Airport from Amritsar as it is very well informed to all the airlines that not to make tourist visa holder of U.K. to board a connecting flight of U.K. from any airport of India. He further argued that if complainant would be informed by the OP regarding the immigration policy of United Kingdom, the complainant and his wife would not have travelled and would not have boarded flight from Amritsar. After returning their house the complainant has called the airline office several time but they did not listen the complainant. Complainant has also sent an email to the OP on 05.03.2021, but OP has refused to reimburse or to compensate complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant had booked 2 tickets through the travel agent for travel on 11.02.2021 from Amritsar to Delhi on Vistara flight UK 694 scheduled to depart  from Delhi to London and from London to Delhi on Vistara Flight UK 018 scheduled to depart on 10.03.2021. He further argued that complainant was denied boarding at Delhi Airport on the advice of the Airport Liaison Officer of the British High Commission as the complainant was unable to justify his purpose of travel. Upon denial of boarding, OP had advised the complainant to contact British High Commission in February itself to resolve the issue, but complainant failed to contact the same. Complainant contacted the OP via email dated 05.03.2021, then also OP advised vide email dated 05.03.2021 to contact the respective Embassy as offloading the complainant was not the decision taken by the OP. The decision to deny boarding to the complainant was taken by British High Commission and the OP was not in a position to question their authority and hence, is not liable to refund any amount to the complainant. He further argued that the present complaint is premature and complainant has not availed the remedy available before the British High Commission and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant had booked 2 tickets through the travel agent for travel on 11.02.2021 from Amritsar to Delhi and Delhi to London and returned ticket from London to Delhi on Vistara Flight on 11.03.2021.

11.           Before going into the merits of the case, firstly we will decide whether the present complaint is premature or not?

12.           The complainant alongwith his wife were denied boarding at Delhi Airport on the advice of the Airport Liaison Officer of the British High Commission as the wife of the complainant was unable to justify her purpose of travel. Upon denial of boarding, OP had advised the complainant to contact British High Commission to resolve the issue, but complainant failed to contact the said Commission. The decision to deny boarding to the complainant was taken by British High Commission. It is not the case of the complainant that he has approached the British High Commission and Commission has not heard his grievances. Complainant has not approached the said Commission with regard to his grievances. Hence, at this stage, we are of the considered view the present complaint is premature and same deserves to be dismissed.

13.           In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the present complaint being premature. However, complainant is at liberty, firstly to approach the British High Commission with regard to redressal of his grievances and if complainant is not satisfied with the decision of the said Commission, in that eventuality, he can approach court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:21.10.2022     

                                                               

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                           Member                          Member