By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Brief facts:-<br /> Complainant who was working as a Carpenter in a Company in Riyadh came down on leave for one month on 16-3-'99. That he originally applied for four months leave but was granted leave only for one month. That he was told further leave would be considered later by the Company and will be stamped accordingly. To the knowledge of complainant he was granted only one month leave and therefore he approached first opposite party in the last week of March, 1999 for reconfirmation of his return ticket. He handed over his ticket and passport to first opposite party who informed him that his visa is valid till 23-6-1999. Although complainant instructed first opposite party that as per his knowledge he had only one month leave, first opposite party repeatedly stated that the leave is sanctioned up to 23-6-1999. Complainant requested first opposite party to give him the translation of visa and to do the needful for confirmation of ticket. That on the same day first opposite party collected Rs.75/- as service charges and Rs.25/- for translation of visa. That no bills were issued. Within three days complainant again contracted first opposite party who assured that the visa is valid till 23-6-1999. The ticket was reconfirmed by first opposite party for his travel on 18-6-1999 from Bombay to Riyadh. It is also his case that first opposite party told him that Airlines or travel agency cannot issue any confirmation on an expired visa. On 16-6-1999 complainant travelled to Bombay by bus which was also arranged by first opposite party for which complainant paid Rs.500/- towards bus fare. On 18-6-1999 complainant travelled from Bombay Airport to Riyadh by the confirmed ticket. On reaching Riyadh Airport he was arrested on the ground that he had no visa. His visa had already expired after one month of his reaching India. He was detained in prison for two days and deported to Bombay. Second opposite party incurred the expenses of his deportation flight fare from Riyadh to Bombay. That second opposite party forced him to sign a lot of papers and they seized his passport. Second opposite party demanded ticket charges of 1662 SR (Saudi Riyal) or equivalent Rs.19,000/- to return of his passport. That first opposite party collected Rs.800/- as bus fare from Bombay to Malappuram which is excess. Due to the mishap complainant lost his job overseas and suffered mental agony and hardships. Besides losing the job his expectation of salary hike was also lost. The construction of his new house could not be completed. That opposite parties are bound to verify visa prior to confirmation of ticket. Complainant alleges deficiency in service and prays for Rs.4,99,999/- as compensation. He seeks a direction to return his passport and direct second opposite party to relinquish the claim of 1662 SR, and to restrain opposite parties from committing unfair trade practice.<br /> 2. Both opposite parties have filed separate version. Besides denying the allegations it is submitted by first opposite party that complainant had approached for reconfirmation of ticket in the last week of April, 1999. The complainant was having an open air ticket for his return journey which was purchased by him from Saudi-Arabia. First opposite party directed him to produce his passport, ticket and English translation of re-entry visa. Complainant submitted these documents after three days. Thereafter complainant came to collect the confirmed ticket and documents only on 03-6-1999. On that day first opposite party collected service charges of Rs.75/- and Rs.500/- towards bus fare from Malappuram to Bombay. Proper receipts were issued for these payments. That first opposite party had not stated anything about the validity period of visa. That first opposite party did not undertake to translate the visa and no amount was collected as translation fee. After 03-6-1999 complainant has not come to first opposite party and that first opposite party has no direct knowledge of the events after 03-6-1999. First opposite party is not an IATA recognised agency and is not competent to issue confirmation of ticket directly. First opposite party has only collected the documents and submitted them before second opposite party for confirmation of ticket. It was second opposite party who issued confirmation of ticket. The narration of loss and hardships in the complaint are false and fabricated. That Rs.800/- was collected as bus fare for the travel from Bombay airport to Malappuram. From Bombay City the charges is only Rs.500/-. That first opposite party has not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service and complaint is only to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. Second opposite party has filed version admitting that complainant was a passenger in Flight No. A-829 on 18-6-1999 from Bombay to Riyadh. It is also admitted that complainant was deported to Bombay from Riyadh for want of visa since the same had expired. That it is not true, that he was deported due to negligence or imperfect service of second opposite party. It is neither the duty nor responsibility of second opposite party to ascertain whether passenger is having valid visa. The contention of complainant that second opposite party is bound to verify the visa prior to confirmation of ticket is specifically denied as incorrect. On the other hand, it is the duty of the passenger to see whether he is having a valid visa for his journey abroad. It is admitted that complainant was deported by Air India flight and second opposite party has incurred the expenses for such deportation. The allegation that second opposite party seized the passport and forced to sign several papers is denied. Since the complainant had no money to travel to India, he handed over the passport to authorities on the promise that the above amount would be paid by his relatives. By letter dated, 07-12-'99 second opposite party has requested complainant to collect his passport by paying equivalent Indian rupees. There is no deficiency in service on the part of second opposite party and complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 4. Evidence consists of affidavit filed by complainant. No documents marked on his behalf. Separate affidavits were filed by first opposite party and second opposite party. Ext.B1 and B2 marked on the side of first opposite party. No documents marked for second opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.<br /> <br /> 5. Points that arise for consideration:- <br /> (i) Whether opposite parties are deficient in service? <br /> (ii) Whether opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice? <br /> (iii) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 6. Point (i) & (ii):- It is the say of complainant that he reached India on 16-3-1999 on leave for one month, with a valid visa for return journey. Admittedly the return ticket was purchased by him from Saudi. It is his case, that in the last week of March 1999 he approached first opposite party and handed over his return ticket along with his passport in order to confirm his ticket, for he intended to travel back before the expiry of his visa. The main dispute in this case revolves around the allegations that (i) that first opposite party stated to the complainant that his visa is valid till 23-6-1999 (ii) that first opposite party translated the visa for complainant (iii) that both opposite parties were negligent in reconfirming the ticket without verifying the validity of the visa. Undoubtedly complainant knew when he arrived, that his visa for re-entry to Saudi is valid only for one month from 16-3-1999. According to complainant when he approached first opposite party for reconfirmation of ticket in the last week of March, 1999 first opposite party stated that his visa is valid upto 23-6-1999. He had handed over his passport and ticket and requested first opposite party to get translation of visa. It is also contended that on the same day he paid Rs.75/- towards service charges along with Rs.25/- as fees for translation of visa; for which opposite party did not issue any bills. Within three days when he again approached first opposite party he was told that his visa is valid upto 23-6-1999. Specifically denying these allegations, it is submitted on behalf of first opposite party that complainant had approached first opposite party for reconfirmation of ticket only in the last week of April, 1999 and not in the last week of March, 1999 as contended by complainant. It is also the case of first opposite party that when complainant approached for reconfirmation of ticket they directed him to produce his passport, ticket and English translation of re-entry visa. These documents were submitted by complainant within three days and were handed over to second opposite party for confirmation of ticket. It is affirmed by first opposite party that neither did they translate the visa nor did they collect Rs.25/- as fee for translation. It is also contended by first opposite party that after submitting the necessary documents and ticket,complainant came to collect them only on 03-6-1999. On this day complainant paid Rs.75/- towards service charges and Rs.500/- towards bus fare for his journey from Malappuram to Bombay scheduled on 16-6-1999. Ext.B1 is the computer print out of the receipt issued to complainant for Rs.75/- Ext.B2 is the computer print out of the receipt issued to complainant for Rs.500/-. Ext.B1 and B2 are both dated, 03-6-1999 which proves the case of first opposite party to be more probable. Complainant has not raised any objection to the veracity of these documents though issuance of these documents and the details of the receipts were pleaded in the version filed on 24-12-1999. It was further fortified by first opposite party that it was complainant who submitted the English translation of his visa along with other documents. The Visas issued from Saudi Arabia are usually in Arabic language. Though it is contended by both sides that the visa was translated either sides have not produced copy of this document. Though complainant contends that he paid fees for translation he is silent as to whether first opposite party furnished him any such translated document. Complainant has not tendered any reliable evidence to support the contention that the visa was translated by first opposite party.<br /> <br /> 7. It was also urged by counsel appearing for complainant that opposite parties have a duty to check the validity of travel documents before reconfirming the ticket and the omission amounts to negligence and deficiency in service. Counsel for second opposite party vehemently controverted this and argued that it is the duty of the passenger to see whether his travel documents are valid and proper for making the journey abroad. This argument is not without force. It is recognized law that a person has to obtain a passport and visa to travel overseas. An air ticket can be purchased even prior to obtaining a visa. The carrier cannot be shouldered with the responsibility to check irregularities in each and every travel document prior to issuance or confirmation of the ticket. Complainant definitely knew at the time of his arrival in India that he had only one month leave. Primary responsibility rests upon him to verify from his employer whether his application for extension of leave was granted or not. It was his duty to ensure that his travel documents are proper. Complainant is a person who had ample experience travelling abroad and it was not his maiden flight. Merely because opposite parties reconfirmed a ticket without verifying the travel documents does not absolve him from the responsibility of ascertaining as to when he has to join duty. It was submitted on behalf of complainant that as per IATA regulation international tickets can be issued only to those who hold valid visa. No such regulation is produced before us. In our view, this argument cannot hold any water. In present days, purchase and confirmation of air tickets are done even by e-transactions. Apart from the nebulous affirmation in affidavit no reliable evidence is tendered by complainant to prove his case. From the above discussions we are able to conclude that complainant has failed to establish a case in his favour. We find both opposite parties not deficient in service. It is also the case of complainant that first opposite party collected excess fare for his travel by bus from Bombay to Malappuram. First opposite party has categorically stated that the bus charges from Bombay Airport to Malappuram is Rs.800/- and that to Bombay City is Rs.500/-. For these reasons we are unable to accept the contention of complainant. We hold opposite parties have not committed any unfair trade practice.<br /> <br /> 8. Point (iii):- In the light of the above findings first prayer in the complaint to award compensation of rs.4,99,999/- is only to be disregarded. The second prayer is to direct second opposite party to relinquish the demand for 1662 SR or equivalent Indian rupees and also direct them to return his passport. During the pendency of this case, complainant filed petition to direct second opposite party to produce the passport before the Forum. The passport was produced by second opposite party on 06-02-03. It was kept in the safe custody of this Forum. At this juncture, we have to say; that it dismays us that a passenger has passed through the emigration counter of the Bombay Airport without a valid travel document. Only after reaching Saudi Airport did it come to light that his visa has expired. He was detained in prison and deported. The expenses were borne by Air India. The amount of 1662 SR incurred as flight charges for deporting the complainant is demanded by Air India. If the complainant had known that his visa has expired, he would have opted for refund of the ticket. There is profound negligence on the part of complainant in not ensuring the validity of his visa. The contention that he travelled abroad without a valid visa only because opposite parties negligently reconfirmed his ticket, is unsustainable. Being an international carrier Air India has an implied duty and responsibility not to carry a passenger who does not have valid travel documents. In our view, Air India, who carried the passenger without valid documents has to shoulder the expenses to bring him back to his country. Admittedly Air India has borne the expenses for deportation. We consider that second opposite party is not entitled to claim the expenses of deportation from complainant. We therefore hold that the relief seeking direction against second opposite party to relinquish their demand for 1662 SR or equivalent Indian rupees is to be allowed. The passport kept in safe custody of this Forum is also to be released to the complainant. All other relief sought are disallowed.<br /> <br /> 9. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and order that second opposite party is restrained from recovering 1662 SR or equivalent India rupees from complainant. The passport shall be released to the complainant after the appeal time on his making an application for the same. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 28th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Nil<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2<br /> Ext.B1 : Computer print out of the receipt for Rs.75/- dated, 03-6-1999<br /> from 1st opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.B2 : Computer print out of the receipt for Rs.500/- dated, 03-6-1999<br /> from 1st opposite party to complainant. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />