View 111 Cases Against British Airways
Awin kour filed a consumer case on 04 Dec 2017 against British airways India in the Nawanshahr Consumer Court. The case no is CC/43/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 11 Dec 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.
Consumer Complaint No. : 43/2015
Date of Decision : 04.12.2017
Awin Kour Sudan aged 30 years, wife of Sukhbir Singh Kundra, Resident of House No.1581 Phase 5, Mohali, SAS Nagar.
….Complainant
Versus
1. British Airways India, 11th Floor, Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.
2. Chitra Travels (Regd), Near Police Station, City, Nawanshahr, through its Proprietor. ….Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Counsel for the parties:
For complainant : Sh.S.S. Kundra, Advocate
For OP No.1 : Sh.Nipun Bhalla, Advocate authorized Rep. of counsel
For OP No.2 : Ms.Sapna Jaggi, Advocate
QUORUM:
S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT
S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER
ORDER
S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT
1. In brief the case of the complainant is that Sh.Sukhbir Singh Kundra husband of complainant went to United States of America in 2010 on L1 visa. The complainant later on joined her husband in USA. At that time, she had dependant L2 visa. While she was in USA her visa was extended. Later on she applied for working visa in USA and she was issued H1 visa which is valid up till 30.06.2016. She was to travel from Boston to New Delhi alongwith her 2 daughters, namely, Kundra Mehar Kaur (date of Birth 6th August, 2014) and Geet Kaur (date of birth 7th November 2009). She was to travel with her parents in law from Boston to New Delhi, who were in USA, for leisure trip, so she purchased the tickets from British Airways, through OP No.2 – Chitra Travels. All required documents were supplied for booking of the tickets and she paid all the charges. Costs of ticket of complainant is for Rs.52,500/- and cost of ticket of daughter Kundra Mehar Kaur and Geet Kaur was Rs.63,500/-. On the fixed date i.e. 09.01.2015, she alongwith her two daughters and parents –in- law reached the airport at Boston, for embarkment in the plane. The parents-in-law and daughter Geet Kaur were allowed embarkment, the complainant and her younger daughter were not allowed to travel by the staff of OP No.1 without any reasonable and probable cause, although the complainant and her younger daughter were having requisite tickets as well as the documents. After the due confirmation by OPs, the complainant initiated her travel. On confirmation, the complainant reached the Boston airport but was wrongly and malafidely not allowed to initiate the journey. Despite several requests and contacts to OPs but without any rhyme and reason she was not allowed to travel with her elder daughter and parents-in-law. Due to this unwanted unethical and unprofessional act of the staff of the OPs, she suffered immensely financially, emotionally and mentally. To complete the journey, she had to arrange for other ticket and to travel next day, waiting endlessly on the airport with her younger daughter. Thereafter, next day, the complainant has to travel from Boston to New York and then from New York to New Delhi. Complainant on gaining her health, informed about the misconduct and negligent act of the ground staff of OP No.1 to Senior Officials, but their replies have not been satisfactory. The officials of OPs have acted in unprofessional and unethical manner and have not allowed to travel the complainant and her younger daughter. OP No.1 has failed to reply the amount of tickets of complainant and her younger daughter i.e. Rs.69500/-. It is therefore, prayed that Ops be directed to pay Rs.1,79,000/- to complainant on account of illegally & negligently not allowing the complainant & her daughter Mehar Kaur Kundra to travel on British Airways Flight from Boston to New Delhi alongwith interest @12% per annum.
2. Upon notice, Sh.Nipun Bhalla, Advocate authorized representative of counsels for OP No.1 has appeared and filed written statement stating therein that complainant has produced US visas endorsed on her passport which had expired on the date of travel i.e. 09.01.2015 and therefore, the complainant could not be permitted to travel without a UK transit Visa. Complainant has purchased tickets for travel from Boston to New Delhi for herself and for her daughter. Complainant’s parents-in-law had also purchased tickets to travel from Boston to New Delhi through OP No.2. Complainant being an Indian passport holder, did not need any visa for travel to India. However, the complainant as well as her co-passengers required transit visas/DATV as their flight itinerary required travel through London. It is also stated that transit visa/DATV is required to be applied for and obtained by a passenger only after tickets have been purchased by the passenger. Transit visas are not issued by any country prior to purchase of ticket which evidence transit through the concerned country. While all other passengers excluding the complainant were apparently exempt from the requirement of DATV visa on account of their holding of US visas and/or US passports, there was issues with the transit/DATV visa of the complainant. It is stated that complainant was unable to produce a transit visa for UK and was therefore not entitled to any exemption and therefore, the complainant was unable to travel with her infant daughter, Mehar Kaur Kundra on the flight from Boston to New Delhi via London. Complainant not holding required transit visa for UK, the complainant was unable to travel from Boston to New Delhi via London on 09.01.2015. However, as the complainant’s parents-in-law as well as the complainant’s older daughter met with the conditions of the transit visa exemption, there was no impediment in their travel and therefore, admittedly, they made the journey from Boston to New Delhi via UK. It is not denied that complainant and her infant daughter were holding the requisite tickets, but they were not holding all necessary documentation. It is denied that complainant started her journey alongwith her two daughters and parents-in-law after due confirmation with the OPs. It is stated that as per procedure, travel documents of a passenger are checked at the check-in-counter before being issued a boarding pass, and no guarantee of any nature whatsoever can be provided to any passenger prior to travel till such time as all the documents are verified at the check-in-counter by the airline staff as well as by immigration staff, as per procedure prior to boarding a flight. It is denied that the complainant and her infant daughter were wrongly or with malafide not allowed to travel. It is stated that alleged wait at airport by the complainant alongwith her younger daughter was not on account of any fault on the part of the answering OP. It is stated that the documents attached by complainant with her complaint reveal that the complainant travelled on a flight on Air India from Boston to New Delhi via New York which did not require transit through London/UK and therefore, the complainant was able to travel without a DATV/transit visa from UK on the said Air India flight from Boston to New York to New Delhi. It is reiterated that the inconvenience suffered by complainant on account of having to travel on a later Air India flight which did not transit through UK, was not on account of any fault or negligence on the part of answering OP but was purely for the reason that the complainant did not have the necessary transit visa thereby making her documents inadequate for travel from Boston to New Delhi via London. It is reiterated that it was the duty of the complainant to ensure that her documents were in order before embarking on the journey. It is stated that complainant was not entitled to any refund as the journey was not made by the complainant and her infant daughter on account of her own default and not on account of any fault or negligence on the part of airline. It is denied that the officials of answering OP have acted in an unprofessional or unethical manner or for any unethical gain. It is stated that on account of complainant not having required transit visa for travel through UK, the answering OP had no option but to prevent the complainant from travelling and as the infant was accompanied by the complainant, the infant also had to be prevented from travelling. As such there no deficiency on the part of answering OP. It is denied that complainant and her younger daughter are entitled to a refund of Rs.69,500/- or to Rs.1,00,000/- towards harassment for the alleged ordeal suffered by the complainant and her daughter. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. OP No.2 has also appeared through his counsel and filed written version stating thereby that answering OP has been unnecessarily dragged into this litigation. Answering OP was approached for purchase of the tickets from Boston to New Delhi. The complainant provided necessary documents which were checked and forwarded to OP No.1. After confirmation from OP No.1, the answering OP being the agent of OP No.1 sold the ticket to the complainant. The e-tickets was provided to the complainant with the status confirmed of all the tickets. Then it was informed on the day of the travel, that OP No.1, ground staff did not allow the complainant and her young daughter - Mehar Kaur to embark and travel on the said air flight without any rhyme and reason. Immediately, the complainant informed the answering OP qua the said callous attitude of ground staff. The answering OP personally tried to contact the office of the British Airways, who assured to deal the matter immediately, but it was not done. Subsequently, the complainant again purchased tickets of Air India from Boston to New York and then from New York to New Delhi. The said tickets of complainant and her daughter – Mehar Kaur Kundra were immediately sent as e-tickets to the complainant. Then the answering OP also received representation against the unprofessional and unethical behavior of the ground staff of OP No.1 which was forwarded to British Airways India, but no response. Inspite of repeated request, the OP No.1 has failed to make the refund of the said tickets of the complainant and her daughter Mehar Kaur Kundra. Answering OP never acted unprofessionally or unethically in any manner rather has valued his customer. There was no negligent and unprofessional act by the answering OP, rather the fault lies with the ground staff of OP No.1. The answering OP has not committed any unethical or callous act, negligent act. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed against OP No.2, if any liability is of OP No.1 only as their ground staff have acted in unethical and unprofessional manner while dealing with valuable customers.
4. In order to prove the complaint, counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents i.e. Ex.C-1 to C-17 and closed the evidence.
5. Similarly, Sh.Nipun Bhalla, Advocate authorized Rep. of counsels for OP No.1 has tendered affidavit of Sanjay Soni Ex.OP1/A alongwith documents Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.OP1/2 and closed the evidence.
6. Learned counsel for OP No.2 has also tendered affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Kumar Sharma Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of learned counsels for the parties.
8. In net shell the case of the complainant as put forth before us by learned counsel for complainant that complainant Awin Kour Sudan alongwith her 2 children namely Mehar Kaur and Geet Kaur as well as her father in law and mother in law. Sh.Suhkbir Singh got air ticket from OP No.2 – agent of OP No.1 – British Airways after making payment as invoice issued by the OPs ExC-4 and Ex.C-5. The said ticket for travelling from Boston to New Delhi via London (U.K.) and accordingly the complainant alongwith her children and mother in law and father in law reached at the Airport for embarkment in the plane but the complainant as well as her younger daughter were not allowed to travel in the schedule flight without any reasonable and probable cause, although, the complainant and her younger daughter were having requisite tickets as well as documentation. The necessary booking was got done after supplying all the documents and after due confirmation of the tickets, the complainant proceeded for her travel, at the Airport of Boston but the ground staff of OP-1 did not allow the complainant for embarkment in the plane as she alongwith her younger daughter were detained to proceed for further travel without any reason, whereas elder daughter and parents in law of the complainant were allowed to travel. Despite repeated requests of the complainant she was not allowed and ultimately she purchased another ticket from Boston to New York thereafter for New Delhi after paying additional amount and as such there is negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In order to prove the claim of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant referred to the affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A whereby she reiterated the entire facts as referred in the complaint. Apart from that the ticket of the complainant Ex.C-1 for travelling on 09.01.2015 and ticket of the younger daughter is Ex.C-3 and ticket of the elder daughter is Ex.C-2 and tickets of her father- in-law and mother-in- law is Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7, then the complainant purchased a fresh ticket for travelling on 10.01.2015, copy of the same is Ex.C-11 and further claimed for refund of the price of the ticket of herself as well as of her younger daughter i.e. Rs.69500/- alongwith compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
9. The version of the complainant is corroborated by OP No.2 by filing written statement whereby it is admitted that the complainant purchased the tickets for herself, her kids, father-in-law and mother-in- law after providing all necessary documentation like Passport, visas and other ID Proofs which were checked by OP-1 and after confirmation by OP-1, the OP No.2 being agent of OP No.1 sold the tickets to the complainant and also admitted that the complainant was not allowed to travel on 09.01.2015 and as such she procure the ticket after spending huge amount of Rs.69500/- for travelling on 10.01.2015.
10. Mainly the case of the complainant is contested by OP-1 simply on the ground that complainant and her younger daughter were not having a transit visa of U.K. and without transit visa, the complainant could not be permitted to travel through U.K. in the flight in question, as it is passed through London and it is the duty of the passenger to get transit visa after purchase of the tickets but complainant had not bothered to get visa and in support of this version, the counsel for OP-1 submitted written arguments whereby he referred to the copy of immigration (Passenger Transit Visa) Order 2014 and further referred Articles 3 & 4 of the said instructions and also placed on the file General Condition of Carriage (Passenger and Baggage) copy of the same is Ex.OP1/2 and also referred to some judgments in the written arguments to the effect that the responsibility of the assured requirement of visa is on the passenger and not of the airline.
11. We have considered the respective submission of learned counsel for the parties and find that the role of the OP No.2 is only to the extent that he sold the tickets to the complainant being agent by mode of E-ticket, OP-2 sold the tickets on behalf of OP-1 and as such for restraining the complainant and her younger daughter from travelling in the Aero plane is not casted upon OP-2. Rather, allegations of the complainant are that the ground staff of OP-1 restrained the complainant as well as her daughter from embarkment in the plane without any reason and rhyme so there is no direct or indirect liability lies upon the OP-2. Therefore OP-2 is not liable for any liability of the complainant.
12. So for the concern of the OP-1 is concerned, OP-1 says that the complainant as well as younger daughter were not having transit visa of U.K., which is required for that aero plane wherein the complainant wanted to travel for coming to New Delhi Via London, but if we go through the documents placed on the file by OP-1 i.e. Immigration (Passenger Transit Visa) order 2014, we can say without any hesitation that as per Article 3&4 “Passengers hold transit visa” but some passengers are exempted from getting transit visa if they hold valid visa for Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United State of America.
13. In the present case, the complainant admittedly was having visa of U.S.A., photocopy of which is available as Ex.C-16 though the said visa has been expired but further visa has been extended by the Competent Authority of U.S.A., photocopy of letter is Ex.C-17. In the said letter it is categorically mentioned that Class H1B visa is valid from 10.10.2013 to 30.06.2016. So when the visa of the complainant is extended upto 30.06.2016 then Rules and Regulations of Immigration (Passenger Transit Visa) are not applicable upon the complainant and her daughter because the case of the complainant is covered under article 3&4 (a) of the said Immigration (Passenger Transit Visa) order 2014, Ex.OP1/1 and therefore, it is clearly established that complainant as well as her younger daughter were harassed, mentally, physically by ground staff of the OP-1 on the pretext that they required transit visa to go through London, whereas as per Rule and Regulation of the Immigration if the complainant has valid visa of U.S.A. then they do not require transit visa. So accordingly act and conduct of ground staff of the OP-1 is totally wrong, arbitrary and against the provisions of law, the act and conduct of ground staff conducted on behalf of OP-1 and as such there is negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and therefore we hold that the complainant is entitled for relief claim from OP-1 only . Whereas the complaint against OP-2 is without merits and same is dismissed.
14. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint filed by complainant is partly accepted and OP No.1 is directed to refund the price of tickets of complainant and her younger daughter i.e. Rs.69500/- alongwith interest @9% P.A. from the date of travel i.e. 09.01.2015 till realization. Further, OP-1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.
15. Entire compliance be made by the OP No.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
16. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
17. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.
Dated 04.12.2017
(Kanwaljeet Singh) (Karnail Singh)
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.