Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/601

Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. N Radhakrishnan - Opp.Party(s)

K Mohandas Pai

09 Sep 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.601/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 9/9/2016

  (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.166/2007 dt . on the file of CDRF, Kottayam)

 

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                       :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANT:

                  Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd.,

              New Corporation Building, Palayam,

              Thiruvananthapuram – Rep: by its Chairman &

              Managing Director E.M. Najeeb.

         

(By Adv:   K.G. Mohandas Pai)                         

                        Vs

RESPONDENTS:

1.  Dr. N. Radhakrishnan, Rajapriya,

 Perunna, Changanassery-686 102, Kottayam.

 

2.  Jayasree.R., Rajapriya, Perunna,

 Changanassery-686 102, Kottayam.

 

3.  M/s. Wonder World Air Travels,

Municiapl Arcade, Changanassery –

Rep: by Managing Director M. George Thomas.         

 

 

 

4.  The Emirates – Rep: by Sales Manager,

 Emirates Travel Shop, Plot No.6964, NH – 47,

 Bye pass, Maradu P.O., Cochin-682 304

 

 (By Adv:   Sandeep T George)            

 

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          Appellant is the 2^nd opposite party in C.C.No.166/07 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam.

          2.  The brief facts of case are that the complainant availed the service of opposite parties for booking tickets from Cochin to Switzerland via Dubai.  The air tickets were arranged by 1^st opposite party who is the agent of the 2^nd opposite party, the authorized agent of 3^rd opposite party, Emirates Airline Company.  The confirmed tickets were booked under economy class. The 2^nd complainant travelled alone on 24/6/2006 from Cochin and transit in Dubai Air Port during her onward journey to Zurich.  She had to wait for about 19 hours to get the next flight of Emirates.           It is stated in the complaint that the opposite parties made believe them that the Emirates would provide accommodation in a standard hotel.  When the   2^nd complainant approached the Help Desk at Dubai Airport she was not provided any assistance for accommodation during the transit period.  The whole over night she had to sit on a chair in the Airport without food or rest or any provision to sleep from 1 pm on 24/6/2006 till 8 a.m on 25/6/2006.  The response from the Emirates Authority in Dubai was quite disheartening.  The 2^nd complainant had to suffer mental agony and she was very panic due to unhealthy condition and helplessness.  It is stated in the complaint that due to the problems experienced by the                        2^nd    complainant, the 1^st complainant who had already booked the journey from Cochin to Zurich, paid some more money for 22/7/2006 for the accommodation during the halt in Dubai.  It is alleged in the complaint that he was not provided with accommodation or he was not allowed to go to the hotel stating that the transit visa had to be arranged in advance by the hotel or the travel agent.  The complainant alleges that the 3^rd opposite party has the basic responsibility to assure proper convenience to the personal requirements of the passenger which was not disclosed nor any dis-entitlements against the economy class air tickets.  The complainants allege that there had no transparency in the transactions made by the opposite parties.  The act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and it is to be compensated.                  The complaint is filed for Rs.5 Lakhs to the 1^st complainant and Rs.3 Lakhs to the 2^nd complainant and also for cost of Rs.10,000/- from the opposite parties.

          3.  1^st opposite party remained absent and 2^nd opposite party filed version contending that the complainants are totally strangers and have not availed any services directly from this opposite party.  It is denied that the 1^st opposite party is an agent or sub agent whereas it is admitted that the 1^st opposite party has purchased air tickets on 29/5/2006 for the travel of complainants.  The tickets purchased were the cheapest one and no accommodation is provided for those tickets.  The flight time is given in the travel kit itself.  The transit in Dubai airport and the timing of the next flight of 3^rd opposite party were appraised to the 1^st opposite party.                   The additional amount alleged to have collected was for postponing the return journey of the 1^st complainant from 9/8/2006 to 26/8/2006 and does not have any relation to accommodation facility.  The 1^st complainant had not made any payment towards the difference for the higher class which included hotel facilities. The economy class fares in Emirates consist of different structures and only M and W class in economy section would get free accommodation as the charges for accommodation would be included in the fare.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of 2^nd opposite party and the complainants are not entitled for any compensation.

          4.  The 3^rd opposite party filed written version contending that the air tickets were purchased from the 1^st opposite party, who is the travel agent,  to travel from Cochin to Zurich via Dubai on 24/6/2006.  The 2^nd complainant was well aware that she had the transit  at Dubai Airport on her onward connection as this was the cheapest possible way to fly to Switzerland.  The direct flight for the shortest waiting time would have been either Air India or Swiz Airlines but the ticket cost to travel through Bombay would have been more expensive.  As per the time schedule the 2^nd complainant was aware that she had to wait for 19 hours and has to make her own arrangements as the ticket purchased did not offer free accommodation at Airlines expense.  Those who require accommodation, the travel agent should have arranged such accommodation at reasonable priced hotels around Dubai and also arrange transit visa.  The 2^nd complainant booked the ticket in ‘Q’ class which is a subordinate class in the economy class wherein the 2^nd complainant is not entitled for accommodation at the airlines cost.  The travel agent had to make necessary arrangements for which it has to be issued from the place of departure. In this case the 2^nd complainant has not availed that opportunity nor paid the amount for hotel accommodation. The class of ticket she booked does not qualify for stopover at the airlines expense.  The 3^rd opposite party contended that what transpired between the complainant and the travel agent with regard to hotel accommodation is not known to the 3^rd opposite party.  In the case of the 1^st complainant that he booked hotel accommodation through internet or for his transit stay in Dubai nothing has produced in-evidence to that effect.  For entry to any country all passengers are required to have a valid transit visa which should be possessed by the traveller from the departure point itself.  There is option to fly directly to Zurich from Mumbai and the 1^st complainant had not opted as the air fare is higher than the economy class fare ticket.  For low-fare class tickets, the stop over accommodation is not entitled for the passengers or any transit visa.  The act of non-providing hotel accommodation at the airlines expense does not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as the Airlines have not taken any consideration against the accommodation expenses or the transit visa expenses.  The duration for waiting at Dubai Airport was very well known to the complainants and they were also well aware that the tickets purchased were of low fare tickets and free accommodation is not entitled by the complainants.  Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed.

          5.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exbts: A1 to A10 were marked.  The 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and              3^rd opposite party as DW2.  Exbts: B1 and B2 were marked in support of their case.  On appreciation of evidence and documents the Forum Below allowed the complaint in part.

          6.  The counsel for the appellant/2^nd opposite party submitted that the respondents had not availed any service from the appellant.  The 3^rd respondent is not the agent of the appellant whereas it is admitted that the 2^nd respondent purchased the air tickets for complainants on 29/5/2006.  The counsel pointed out that the 1^st and 2^nd respondents purchased through the 3^rd respondent the cheapest tickets under economy class wherein no accommodation could be made available as per the norms of Airlines.  It is admitted that the respondents booked the tickets for 22/7/2006 and 26/6/2006 and the transit in Dubai Airport as well as the details of the next flight of 1^st and 2nd respondent were appraised in advance.  The additional amount paid by the 1^st respondent is not to promote or enhance the status of the ticket or for higher class for providing hotel facility.  It was for postponing the 1^st respondent’s journey from scheduled date on 9/8/2006 to 26/8/2006.  Under Economy Class in the 4^th Respondent’s flights consist of sub classes of economy – N, M, W or Y. The 2^nd respondent booked ‘Q’ class ticket which is a subordinate class in economy class and she is not entitled for accommodation at the carrier’s cost. The 2^nd respondent had not produced any document to prove that she had booked any Hotel accommodation through internet.  It is mandatory to ensure necessary visa on transit by the passengers to go outside the airport premises.  The 1^st respondent is a Doctor and had travelled several times to Switzerland so also the 2^nd complainant is travelling for the 2^nd time to Switzerland.  So they are well aware of the facilities available in ‘Q’ class ticket and being the cheapest ticket purchased from the 3^rd respondent.  This appellant has no liability or no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant.  If at all any liability is to be fastened, it is to be upon the 3^rd respondent only.  However the M & W category of economy ticket  enable the passenger for availing accommodation facilities.  It is merely to save money or avoid accommodation and food expenses. The complainants could have availed accommodation inside the Airport Hotels or Restaurants and without availing the facility itself shows that the 2^nd respondent had no intention to avail the services on payment.  The 1^st respondent who travelled subsequently had not availed the facilities, within the Airport or procuring transit visa for going outside Airport shows that the 1^st respondent also had no desire to avail the facilities.  The counsel argued that availing the cheapest ticket through Dubai is merely to get financial gain.  They also knew the onward flight takes 19 hours during the transit period.  Further there is the other airways from Bombay to Switzerland which  is  having  higher  flight  charges.  They  have  not  opted  for availing the higher cost route even after appraising the details of flights by the 3^rd respondent.  It cannot be said that the 3^rd respondent had not appraised regarding the delay of 19 hours, nor being                                             frequent passengers the 1^st and 2^nd respondents were not aware of it. The Forum Below ignored the fact that the tickets availed by the respondents in ‘Q’ series do not provide accommodation or food facilities.  However it is clear from Exbt: A10 produced by the respondents that the 4^th respondent as a gesture of good will without prejudice or admission of liability had credited to the respondents skywards account with 5000 miles.  As per stop over accommodation at airline cost (STPC) a passenger must need two criteria to qualify for STPC.  The first criteria is that the passenger must book in sub-classes of economy N,M,W or Y.  In this case the respondents purchased the ticket in ‘Q’ economy class.  Hence no liability can be fastened upon the appellant and the order of the Forum is to set-aside. 

7.  It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the           2^nd respondent was travelling alone in the 4^th respondent’s flight from Cochin to Zurich through Dubai.  On 24/6/2006 the 2^nd respondent had to wait in the Dubai Airport for getting her connection flight.  The 1^st and 2^nd respondent purchased the ticket through the 3^rd respondent who is the local agent of the appellant.  It is appraised that the respondents would be provided with accommodation in a standard hotel during the transit time.    To the surprise of the respondents there had no assistance from the part of the opposite parties.  The 2^nd respondent had to wait in a chair in the Airport without food or rest and more over there had further delay of           3 hours and the 2^nd respondent reached in a miserable condition.  The inaction of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.  The 2^nd respondent was not allowed to go out of the Airport or arrange any accommodation for her.  The 1^st respondent also had the same experience on 22/7/2006 when he also had bitter experience and had to get his accommodation himself.  He was not provided with accommodation and was not allowed to go to the Hotel on the ground that he was not having transit visa.  The 3^rd respondent had not disclosed regarding any             dis-entitlements of accommodation or food in the economy class.   The non-transparency in the transaction of the appellant and the 3^rd respondent resulted in the mental agony which amounts to deficiency in service.  The counsel also prayed for upholding the order passed by the Forum Below.

8. The counsel for the 4^th respondent argued the case in detail and accepted the views taken by the appellant herein.

          9.  We have heard the counsels in detail and had gone through the documents.  It is not in dispute that the 1^st and 2^nd respondent purchased the ticket from the 3^rd respondent and the ticket was availed from the appellant herein.  Though it is denied that the 3^rd respondent is not the local agent of the appellant it is admitted that the 3^rd respondent purchased the ticket from the appellant.  The crucks of the case lies in not providing the accommodation during the transit time in Dubai Airport.  It is clear from the ticket itself that the 1^st and 2^nd respondent purchased the economy ticket in ‘Q’ class.  As per the STPC, the passengers are entitled for accommodation who come under N,M,W or Y.  It is clear from the deposition of the 1^st respondent that he is a frequent visitor to Zurich and the 2^nd respondent also had been to Zurich earlier and the tickets were provided by the 3^rd respondent.  Undisputedly documents reveal that the tickets were of cheapest fare under economy class.  As per the economy ‘Q’ class the accommodation is provided on payment and on request.  Moreover, the accommodation or food or other facilities like transit visa had to be applied from the departure point itself.  In the case of the 1^st an d 2^nd  respondent they had not given any request for accommodation or transit visa.  The non-providing of accommodation is not the liability on the  part of the 4^th respondent as there is no provision for accommodation for ‘Q’ class tickets.  In order to get out of the Airport in a foreign country the transit visa is to be taken in advance.  Though the 1^st respondent claims that he had booked Hotel accommodation himself, no evidence is on record.  As per law a  passenger is not permitted to go outside the hotel without any transit visa in a foreign country.  The accommodation and food are available in the airport on payment and the respondents have not availed that opportunity on payment of cost.  Moreover, these respondents had occasions to travel from Cochin to Zurich several times and claiming ignorance cannot be taken as an advantage to that extent.  Hence we are of the considered view that the respondents are not entitled for the free accommodation or other facilities without payment on the cost of carriers.

          In the result, appeal allowed setting-aside the order passed by the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

                                                                               

                                                                                               

 A. RADHA                  :           MEMBER

 

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR      :   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

Sa.

                                                                               

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

     DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE,

VAZHUTHACAUD   

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.601/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 9/9/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.