Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/106/2015

Mrs.Mariya Johnsi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Duty Manager Air India Airline - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.M.Antony Jesurajan

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                    Date of Complaint Filed :  16.02.2015

                                                    Date of Reservation       : 16.08.2022

                                                    Date of Order                : 30.08.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:  TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                        : PRESIDENT

                     THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,        :  MEMBER  I 

                     THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.106 /2015

TUESDAY, THE 30^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Miss.Mariya Jhansi,

represents through her Power of Attorney,

Mrs. J.Mariya Vijaya,

W/o Jose Pandian,

No.2/7, Mariappa Naicker Street,

Thulasi Ammal Nagar, Nesapakkam,

Chennai-600078.                                                                                                                                                                   ... Complainant

..Vs..

 

1.Duty Manager, Air India Airlines,

   No.19, Laxmipathy Road,

   Egmore,

   Chennai-600008.

 

2.Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd.

   Rep.By its Managing Director,

   Suite No.202, 2nd Floor, Capital Towers,

   Kodambakkam High Road,

   Opp Kumarakom Restaurant,

   Nungambakkam,

   Chennai-600034.                                                                                                                                                        …Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. M.Antony Jesurajan

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party   : M/s. N.G.R. Prasad

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party   : M/s. V. Rajagopal  

 

        On perusal of records and on endorsement made by the Counsel for Complainant to treat written arguments as oral arguments and on hearing the Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

 

 

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to refund the full Air ticket money of Rs.47,007/- collected towards for Ticket to travel and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for negligent act, mental agony, hardship, damages and 100$ or Rs.6,500/- for other expenses and Rs.1000/- towards notice charges.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant is studying M.B.B.S in Ivano-Frankivsk National Medical University at Ukraine and completed her first year study in the above said University. On 20.08.2014, she booked two ticket to travel from Chennai to New Delhi and New Delhi to Frankfurt planning to depart un 4 September 2014 in "Air India" airlines and From Frankfurt in Kiev-Borispol Airport to depart on 5^th September 2014 in "LH-Lufthansa airline by using yatra.com" The tickets were booked for herself and her another friend namely Miss Vinodhini. The opposite parties have given two itinerary vide ticket No.5269907870 and 5269907071 dated 24/8/2014 for them. One was given to travel from Chennai to New Delhi and other one was given to travel from New Delhi to Frankfurt. The Complainant and her friend were at Chennai airport on 4^th September 2014 at around 4.30AM, after all checkup made by the officials of the 1^st Opposite Party, two boarding passes were issued at Chennal itself by the 1^st Opposite Party to each of them. One boarding pass was to travel from Chennai to New Delhi and another was New Delhi to Frankfurt. They reached safely to New Delhi without any problem. They were checked by immigration officer in New Delhi and told them that a transit Visa was required to travel further from New Delhi to Frankfurt and questioned the officials of Air India about issuance of boarding passes to travel from New Delhi to Frankfurt. They were taken to the Superior officer where they explained the entire facts and circumstances. But the 1^st Opposite Party's officials compelled the Complainant and her friend to return the boarding passes and luggage tags issued at Chennai Airport to travel from Dell to Frankfurt and told to wait outside as they didn't have "TRANSIT VISA. The 1^st Opposite Party as an Airline, cleared all immigrations at Chennai itself, and they didn't say anything about "TRANSITVISA" but the Complainant and her friend were deported in the middle of the journey at checking point, New Delhi. The officials ill treated them in a lax manner for transit visa to go Frankfurt. The 1^st Opposite Party didn't not say anything about transit Visa while issuing boarding pass at Chennai to travel from New Delhi to Frankfurt. At last they were constrained to cancel all their flight ticket booked through 2^nd Opposite Party again booked new ticket to travel in SU Aeroflot Airlines from New Delhi to Moscow and Muscow to Kiev-Brosophil by spending extra amount of Rs.27,500/-. The 1^st Opposite Party, failed to consider their teen age as well as security in the middle of their journey at New Delhi, the opposite parties have not made any arrangement for boarding or lodging and the opposite parties have not returned back their money paid for the ticket still now, Due to such negligent act, mental torture and deficiency in service by denying to travel from New Delhi to Frankfurt which caused her tears and stress. 1^st Opposite Party being an airlines issued two boarding passes to the Complainant at Chennal itself to travel from Chennai to New Delhi and another was from New Delhi to Frankfurt without verifying the transit vita negligently which amounts to negligent act and deficiency service. Believing their two boarding passes, the Complainant and her friend travelled to New Delhi as scheduled by them. Now the 1^st Opposite Party as an Airlines failed to fulfill their obligation and the 2^nd Opposite Party as an agent of the 1^st Opposite Party failed to give proper guidance about transit Visa which has resulted grave loss inconvenience, mental agony and hard ship to them.Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant booked her tickets through the 2^nd Opposite Party. This Opposite Party is not aware as to who booked the ticket and who paid the money to the 2^nd Opposite Party and on what terms and conditions the 2^nd Opposite Party issued the tickets. It is purely within the knowledge of the Complainant and the 2^nd Opposite Party, therefore this Opposite Party is not in a position to answer the Complainants allegation with regard to payment and refund etc. Without prejudice to the above. according to the 1^st  Opposite Party a ticket in the name of the Complainant was booked through the 2^nd Opposite Party Yatra.com, a travel portal web site for her journey from Chennai to Delhi by A1440 and from Delhi to Frankfurt by Al 121 on 4.9.2014. Even according to the Complainant, her journey from Frankfun to Kiev was booked through Lufthansa Airlines. On 04.09.2014 when the Complainant reported at Chennai Airport since she is holding a confirmed ticket from Chennai-Delhi and Delhi-Frankfurt in the 1^st Opposite Party Airlines, she was given two boarding passes viz. one for Chennai to Delhi as Domestic passenger since she was travelling by purely a domestic flight Al 440 and another for Delhi to Frankfurt for international sector as she is going to travel in an International Flight. When a passenger obtains Boarding passes at the origin point itself for both domestic and international sector, then they can straight away go to the international terminal immigration without having to go out of the Airport terminal building to check in again. Since the Complainant travelled from Chennai to New Delhi as a domestic passenger, she had not gone through the immigration at Chennai as alleged. Only at New Delhi she had gone to the immigration. When the Complainant went for immigration clearance at New Delhi, the immigration authorities there did not permit the Complainant to cross the immigration on the ground that she did not have a transit visa issued by the German Consulate. The immigration authorities are independent agency of the Government of India and this Opposite Party has no control over them or say in their direction. Therefore the Complainant could not travel on the 1^st Opposite Party flight on 4.9.2014. Therefore the Complainant cannot blame this Opposite Party. This Opposite Party was ready and willing to perform their obligation for carrying the Complainant by their flight. It is the Complainant who failed to procure/possess the required documents/authorization to land at Frankfurt, therefore she cannot blame this Opposite Party. There is no deficiency on the part of this Opposite Party. Hence the allegation of deficiency of service against the 2^nd Opposite Party Airlines is not enable.  Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. Written Version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

That the Complainant having used the online platform www.yatra.com has become "User" and by virtue of having "accepted the terms of use of the Master User Agreement to be found on http://www.yatra.com/vatra-user agreement.html, has agreed to this contract. The said Master User Agreement is the governing contract by virtue of acceptance by the Complainant, as well as by virtue of the provisions of the Information Technology Act of 2000, and it shall not be out of place to mention that is a settled principle of law that when two courts have concurrent jurisdiction, Parties may, by agreement, oust the jurisdiction of one of the courts. By agreeing to User Agreement, in case of any disputes, parties have agreed to subject themselves to the exclusive jurisdiction of Gurgaon. Haryana. Hence, it is stated that this Hon'ble Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on this Complaint. That the Complainant can only file this Consumer Complaint against Opposite Party No. 1, which in true senses can be deemed the Service Provider to the Complainant. That the Complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint against them as the Complainant had only avail online automated flight ticket booking facility simplicitor. They are  not obligated to intimate the customers availing online automated flight ticket booking facility simplicitor regarding the requirement of visa. Thus any allegations of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be maintainable by the Complainant against them only against services for which a fee has been charged. In the instant case the Complainant had not availed visa assistance services.  Even otherwise, without prejudice to the foregoing, they had duly displayed the transit visa requirement to the Complement at the time of her booking the fight tickets, as will be established under reply on merits. The tickets were booked by the Complainant through their computer systems, which systems are based in Gurgaon. The tickets were hence booked in Gurgaon, and payment was received in Gurgaon. Hence, it is stated that this Honble Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on this Complaint. The entire premise of the complaint is based on the false allegation that they didn't inform the Complainant about obtaining transit visas for the Complainant and her friend thereby allegedly resulting in the detainment at Delhi airport, and eventual cancellation of their scheduled travel from Delhi to Kiev Borispol via Frankfurt. The aforementioned allegation is false and baseless as the Complainant was made aware by them regarding the requirement of transit visa to travel on the fight of her choosing, at the time of the Complainant booking the fight tickets. Visa guidelines forming part of their terms and conditions available on their web site. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.  The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8  were marked. The 1^st Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the1st Opposite Party, documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4  were marked. The 2^nd Opposite Party submitted its Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments and no document was marked on their side.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

It is an undisputed fact that two tickets were booked by the Complainant for herself and for her friend, to travel from Chennai to New Delhi and New Delhi to Frankfurt on 04.09.2014 in "Air India" airlines of the 1^st Opposite Party and from Frankfurt in Kiev-Borispol Airport to depart on 5^th September 2014 in "LH-Lufthansa airline through yatra.com, the 2^nd Opposite Party, as found in Exs.A-4 and A-5.

The dispute arose when they were checked by immigration officer in New Delhi and told them that a transit Visa was required to travel further from New Delhi to Frankfurt, in spite of Check up made at Chennai airport on 4^th September 2014 at around 4.30 am, by the officials of the 1^st Opposite Party and they were issued two boarding passes at Chennal itself by the 1^st Opposite Party to each of them. One boarding pass was to travel from Chennai to New Delhi and another was New Delhi to Frankfurt. When questioned the officials of Air India about issuance of boarding passes to travel from New Delhi to Frankfurt, they were taken to the Superior officer where they explained the entire facts and circumstances. But the 1^st Opposite Party's officials compelled the Complainant and her friend to return the boarding passes and luggage tags issued at Chennai Airport to travel from Delhi to Frankfurt and told to wait outside as they didn't have "TRANSIT VISA. The 1^st Opposite Party as an Airline, cleared all immigrations at Chennai itself, and they didn't say anything about "TRANSIT VISA" but the Complainant and her friend were deported in the middle of the journey at checking point, New Delhi.

The contention of the Complainant is that the 1^st Opposite Party officials at Chennai Airport had negligently without verifying the Transit Visa had issued two board passes from Chennai to New Delhi and another was New Delhi to Frankfurt and believing the same they travelled to new Delhi as per their schedule. Further contended that by doing so, the 1^st Opposite Party had failed to fulfill their obligations and the 2^nd Opposite Party had failed to give proper guidance about Transit Visa that resulted in grave loss, inconvenience, mental agony and hardship to them and their negligent acts amounts to deficiency of service.

The Contention of the 1^st Opposite party is that in the Flight Details marked as Ex.B-2 it has been clearly mentioned in the Note column of flight departures from Delhi at 13.45 hours and reaches Frankfurt that “transit Visa required”, as well as it is clear from the General Conditions of Carriage for passengers and baggage as found in Ex.B-4 under Article 14.1 “Carrier shall not be liable for any aid or information given by any agent or employee of Carrier to any passenger in connection with obtaining necessary documents or visas or complying with such laws, regulations, orders, demands and requirements, whether given in writing or otherwise or for the consequences to any passenger resulting from his or her failure to obtain such documents or visas or to comply with such laws, regulations, orders, demands and requirements, rules or instructions”, as well as Under Article 14.2 it would be clear that “The Passenger shall present all exit, entry, health and other documents required under laws, regulations, orders, demands or requirements of the countries concerned. Carrier reserves the right to refuse carriage of any passenger who has not complied with applicable laws, regulations, orders, demands and requirements or whose documents do not appear to be in order. Further Under Article 14.3 it would clear that “The Passenger agrees to pay the applicable fare whenever carrier, on Government order, is required to return a passenger to his or her point of origin or elsewhere, owing to the passenger’s inadmissibility into a country, whether of transit or of destination. Carrier may apply to the payment of such fare any funds paid to Carrier for unused carriage, or any funds of the passenger in the possession of carrier. The fare collected for carriage to the point of refusal of entry or deportation will not be refunded by carrier”. Further contended that the Complainant in paragraph No.3 of the Complaint had averred that she had completed her first year M.B.B.S in Ivano-Frankvisk National Medical University at Ukraine and hence she would have very well known about the travel documents, particularly Transit Visa required for travel and it is also evident from Ex.A-3 filed by the Complainant.

Though the 2^nd Opposite Party had not come forward to submit their oral argument, inspite of several opportunities provided to them, their oral arguments was closed, whereas they had filed their written version, proof affidavit and written arguments and their contentions were that the visa guidelines is available in their website and the Complainant had availed their service only with regard to purchase of tickets and they are restricted only to that extent as per the terms and conditions. Further in the written version, it is mentioned that in visa guidelines available in their website it is clearly informed that “please carry a valid visa for the country you will be visiting or transiting through please check with the concerned airline or embassy for all visa requirement”.

On perusal of the Exhibits marked as on the side of the Complainant and 1^st Opposite Party as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Complainant who had completed her first year M.B.B.S in Ivano-Frankivsk National Medical University at Ukraine, who had also filed her Ukeraine visa as Ex.A-3, had failed to produce the same at Immigration New Delhi Airport, which clearly resulted in refusal made by the Immigration officials to travel from New Delhi to Frankfurt. As the Complainant had travelled earlier to Ukraine would be very well aware of carrying the transit visa and hence the contentions of the Complainant that the immigration officials at Chennai Airport permitted her and her friend to travel by issuing boarding passes to travel from New Delhi to Frankfurt is not legally sustainable. Further, as per Ex.B-2, the mentioning of transit visa was found in the flight details. From Ex.B-4 it is clear from General conditions of carriage for passengers and baggage, as per Article 14.1 the 1^st Opposite Party shall not be liable for any aid or information given by any agent or employee of carrier to any passenger in connection with obtaining necessary  documents or visas, further as per Article 14.2, the Complainant shall present all exit, entry and other documents, failing which the 1^st Opposite Party reserves its right to refuse carriage of any passenger who has not complied or whose documents do not appear to be in order, and as per Article 14.3 the fare collected for carriage to the point of refusal of entry or deportation will not be refunded by the 1^st Opposite Party. The contentions of the 2^nd Opposite Prty with regard to services availed is only for purchasing flight tickets ad not for visa guidelines and further the visa guidelines/information is available in their website and quoted the same in their written vrsion, are not denied by the Complainant in their proof affidavit or in their Written Arguments. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 had not committed deficiency of service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 and 3 :-

As discussed and decided point no.1 as against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the Complaint and/or for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

 

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 30^th of August 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

 

Ex.A1	19.08.2013	Copy of Passport copy
Ex.A2	03.09.2014	Copy of Special power of attorney
Ex.A3	04.09.2014	Copy of Ukraine VISA with endorsement as off loaded by airline
Ex.A4	04.09.2014	Copy of E-ticket Yatra booking No.24801412115 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A5	04.09.2013	Copy of E-ticket Yatra Booking No.13177243 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A6	19.11.2014	Copy of Lawyer’s notice to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A7	20.11.2014	Copy of Delivery report
Ex.A8	-	Copy of Proof for further payment

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the1st Opposite Party:-

 

 

Ex.B1	-	Copy of user agreement of 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.B2	-	Copy of Flight Details
Ex.B3	-	Copy of Terms and Conditions of 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.B4	-	Copy of General Conditions of Carriage for Passengers and Baggage of 1st Opposite Party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 2nd Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR               B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                     MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT