DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 4 of 7.1.2016

                                      Decided on: 23.12.2020

Narinder Kaur Singh wife of Sh.Balwinder Singh, resident of House No.2044/5, Guru Tej Bahadur Nagar, Lehal Patiala, through its Power of attorney holder Sh.Balwinder Singh resident of House No.2044/5, Guru Tej Bahadur Nagar, Lehal Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

The Chief Executive Officer/Chief Manager, China Air Lines Ltd., Unit No.23/25 3^rd Floor, MGF Metropolies M.G.Road, Gurgaon 122001, Haryana-India.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Jagdish Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite party ex-parte.                                     

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Narinder Kaur Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against  China Air Lines (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that the husband of the complainant Sh.Balwinder Singh purchased traveling ticket of China Air Lines through Gurkaran Travels at Patiala on behalf of his wife/complainant on 20.2.2014 on the basis of valid documents i.e. passport and valid visa for travelling from New Delhi to Vancouver via Taipei .
3. It is further averred that on 23.3.2014, complainant entered India Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi at about 9:00am by showing valid and confirmed air traveling ticket alongwith valid passport and valid visa in order to  get boarding pass, but the OP staff at the air port refused her to issue boarding pass  with the plea that her visa is valid from 25.3.2014 whereas the same was valid from 25.3.2013 and ticket date is 23.3.2014 and wrote on the ticket off load and directed the complainant to go outside from the airport through gate No.8.It  is further averred that the complainant with upset mood and under heavy pressure on her mind came outside from the airport.
4. It is further averred that thereafter she contacted her daughter –in –law who after getting the number  of china airlines brought the matter into the notice of office incharge China Airlines at New Delhi and after great persuasion, complainant immediately came back and entered the gate through gate No.6 at 12:00 clock. This time also she was again denied for boarding pass and directed to go outside from the airport through gate No.8.
5. It  is further averred that the staff of branch  office of China Airlines after going through their record came to know that their staff  is at fault and issued a New passenger itinerary letter dated 24.3.2014 and allowed the complainant to travel to Vancouver by flight No.(C) -72 dated 26.3.2014.
6. It is further averred that on reaching Taipei on 26.3.2014, wheel chair which was confirmed in the ticket was not provided to the complainant and she walked helplessly hundred meters with great stress on her mind to take another flight No.(C)32 to Vancouver.
7. It is further averred that the complainant was not at fault at anywhere but remained under great stress, felt insulted in the presence of hundred of passengers at the airport and faced lot of questions from security staff(Police) of the airport. The husband of the complainant sent notice dated 15.4.2014 to the respondent who sent false, baseless and unsatisfied reply dated 15.4.2014. The complainant also called concerned official of the OP on telephone and the OP forwarded message dated 13.8.2014 stating that China Air Lines denied to pay compensation but offered one economy class free round trip ticket between Del-YVR-DEL to close this case, which clearly show fault upon them.
8. It is further averred that the act and conduct of the OP caused mental harassment, agony and insult to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP to compensation of Rs.10lac alongwith any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit.
9. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OP, who appeared through counsel and contested the case by filing written reply. In reply, it raised preliminary objection that the present complaint is not maintainable.
10. On merits, it is denied that the staff of the OP at the Airport had refused the complainant to issue the boarding pass. It is submitted that now a days at the check-in counter as per rules laid down by the Airport Authority of India, the ground handling is done by an independent agency with which the airline has no connection. The check-in and issuance of boarding pass also comes under the staff of ground handling agency. It is further submitted that if the staff at the ground handling agency had refused to issue the boarding pass on the basis that the complainant did not have a valid visa, it was incumbent upon the complainant to have informed the ground staff that she had a valid visa. It is further submitted that the visa itself indicate that the same was valid from 25.3.2014.
11. It is admitted that call was received from the daughter of  complainant in the administrative office stating that the documents of the complainant were valid. It is informed by the administrative office to the complainant’s daughter that if the documents were valid, the complainant should have informed the airlines and in any case complainant be advised to stay at airport but at about 11 Am the complainant’s daughter stated that complainant is coming back to the airport from Gurgaon and would reach the airport within 30 minutes. It is   further submitted that the complainant did not arrive at the gate within time when the counters were kept open until 12 noon and thereafter the check-in counter and the flight both were closed. The complainant reached at the airport after about 12:15PM and by that time it was too late for the complainant to board the flight as all other formalities for departure of the flight had already been completed. It is further submitted that it was admitted by the complainant that she was not having valid visa. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP after denying all other averments made in the complaint, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
12. In support of the complaint Sh.Balwinder Singh, tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA  alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C12 and closed the evidence.
13. On behalf of the OP Sh.Vihsal Gohri,Advocate, tendered affidavit Ex.OPA of Rentala Kishan Chand Manager (Accounts) China Airlines India and closed the evidence.

Here it is stated that for addressing arguments, none appeared on behalf of the OP and was thus proceeded againstex-parte vide order dated 19.7.2019.

14. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
15. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP has illegally stopped the complainant for boarding plane to Canada despite the fact that she was having valid visa from 25.3.2013.The ld. counsel further argued that she was denied entry on 23.3.2014 and after intense correspondence with the OP she was allowed by airline to board on 26.3.2014.The ld. counsel further argued that she was having valid visa and valid ticket on 23.3.2014 but she was wrongly stopped by the OP for boarding the plane. The ld. counsel further argued that act and conduct of the OP caused her mental torture, harassment and mental agony and she has also felt insult. The ld. counsel further argued that she was not at all at fault and she remained under great stress and insulted  in the presence of the passengers when she was asked to go out from the airport despite having  valid visa, valid passport and valid ticket. The ld. counsel further argued that complaint be accepted and compensation of Rs.10lac be given to her.
16. To prove the case Sh.Narinder Kaur Singh has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith the documents. In the affidavit she has deposed as per the complaint.Ex.C1 is the passport of the complainant, in which she was having valid visa from 25.3.2013 to 16.10.2021 of Canada,Ex.C2 is special power of attorney, Ex.C3 is confirmed air ticket of China Airlines,Ex.C4 is passenger itinerary,Ex.C5 is  notice sent to the OP for not allowing the complainant to board the flight of  China Airline on 23.3.2014 despite having valid visa,Ex.C7 reply of complaint, Ex.C8 e-mail,Ex.C9 legal notice,Ex.C11 boarding pass dated 26.3.2014.
17. On behalf of the OP Rentala Kishan Chand Manager (Accounts) tendered affidavit Ex.OPA and has deposed as per the written reply.
18. As per the written statement of the OP, in para No.3, it is submitted that the staff of ground handling agency had refused to issue  boarding pass on the basis that the complainant did not have  valid vias. It was also incumbent upon the complainant to have informed the ground staff that she was having  a valid visa.
19. In para No.4, it is submitted that the complainant herself admitted that she was not having visa on 25.3.2014.
20. As per the complaint and as per the documents, the complainant was  having valid ticket and valid visa on 23.3.2014 and the valid passport is on the file, which shows that she was having valid visa from 25.3.2013 to 16.10.2021.
21. In the written statement filed by the OP, it has clearly admitted that she was denied entry by the ground staff despite the fact that she was having valid visa.
22. So from the documents on the file,  it is clear that  complainant Narinder Kaur singh  was wrongly not given boarding pass by the OP on 23.3.2014 despite the fact that she was having valid ticket, valid visa and valid passport and after lot of correspondence she was allowed to board on the same visa on 26.3.2014.
23. So it is clear that that she was deliberately harassed by the OP for no fault of her and from the evidence it is clear that the OP is at fault despite the fact  that she was having valid visa and valid ticket to board the aircraft for Vancouver on 24.3.2014 and she had suffered harassment till 26.3.2014 when she was again allowed to board the plane for Vancouver.
24. The complainant has demanded Rs.10lac for causing harassment, mental agony and tension but Rs.10lac is huge amount as there is no document produced by the complainant on the file to show that where she stayed and how much amount was spent in three days by her.
25. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case that complainant was illegally denied boarding pass on 23.3.2014 by the OP despite the fact that she was having valid visa, valid ticket and valid passport, so the complaint stands allowed by directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from 23.3.2014 till realization and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.        

Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:23.12.2020     

                                        Y.S.Matta                                Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                         Member                                  President