PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party by causing harassment, insult and off loading of the Complainant from Aircraft.
2) The Complainant is a manufacturer of Industrial valves and steel casting. He has a place of business in Mumbai and he is engaged in supplying these products to Turkey (Istanbul). Opposite Party No.1 is an International airline carrying passengers from place to place in the world. Opposite Party No.2 is an agent of Opposite Party No.1.
3) The Complainant has stated that there was a fax message from one company known as Vastas from Istanbul, addressed to the Complainant stating “We have quantitative requirement for our ongoing project. We request you to discuss on 05th and 6th July, 2004 with all your technical as well as commercial documentation to prove yourself. Please consider our situation and inform us if you are able to visit us or not. If not, we shall negotiate with someone else”.
4) In response to the above fax message the Complainant had planned a visit to Istanbul and further to Bukharest (Rumania) and therefore booked the air ticket of Opposite Party No.1 from Mumbai to Istanbul Via Dubai through Opposite Party No.2. As per this ticket the Complainant was to travel on 04/07/04 by flight EK 505 Economy which was scheduled to leave Mumbai at 9.45 a.m. On 04/07/04 itself the ticket was booked by Istanbul Ataturk. The flight from Dubai to Istanbul was to depart at 14.35 hrs. The reservation of the whole journey was confirmed.
5) On 06/07/04 the Complainant was to travel from Istanbul to Bukharest (Rumania) by flight 262. This ticket was booked by Tarom. Reservation was confirmed. The flight was to depart at 18.40 hrs.(on 06/07/07).
6) On 09/07/04 he had booked air ticket on which he was to travel from Bukharest to Istanbul by flight 261 with reservation was confirmed. Flight was to depart at 16.30 hrs. and arrive at 17.40 hrs. at Istanbul. Thereafter on the same day he was to travel by Opposite Parties aircraft flight EK122 from Istanbul to Dubai and the flight was to depart at 19.20 hrs. from Istanbul (Reservation confirmed).
7) On 11/07/04 the Complainant had booked air ticket on which he was to fly by flight EK504 from Dubai to Mumbai by Opposite Parties Aircraft (Reservation confirmed). Departure time was 4.00 hrs.
8) The Complainant also stated that he is a frequent traveler and this can be seen from the entries in his passport.
9) The Complainant further stated that on 04/07/04 at the time of commencement of the journey, the Complainant was issued boarding pass from Mumbai to Istanbul by flight EK 505. This boarding pas was issued by the Opposite Party No.1 as well as Tarkish Airlines.
10) After arriving at Dubai, the Complainant went for security check at Gate No.25 at Dubai Airport, for his journey from Dubai to Istanbul by flight EK 121, the Security Officer M/s.Sameera posted at Gate No.25 checked his boarding pass, visa and all documents and kept them with her. She instructed the officers at the counter to cancel boarding pas of the Complainant. When she was asked about the same, she told the Complainant that “the visa of the Complainant was not proper, therefore, the Complainant could not enter Turkey”. Thus, the Complainant was not allowed in flight EK 121 from Dubai to Istanbul on the ground that the visa of the Complainant was not proper and the ticket is not confirmed though the ticket was confirmed one.
11) On 04/07/04 at 19.00 hrs. the Complainant was given accommodation in the Hotel Millenium at Airport and issued ticket of Turkey Airlines on 05/07/04 on flight EK 1163. The Complainant reached Istanbul on 05/07/04 in morning but at that time the baggage was not traceable. Then he reached at Rumania without his baggage and without his veg food. This was brought to the notice of Vice President at the Opposite Party No.1 vide his letter dtd.07/07/04.
12) The Opposite Party No.1 vide its letter dtd.08/03/04 replied to the Complainant that the Opposite Party would like to apologise for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant at Dubai air port on 04/07/04. Further, the said officer, after completing the investigation explained that the transit time in Istanbul, exceeded the permitted time duration laid down by the Immigration Authority of Turkey. It was also informed that there was no confirmed booking from Istanbul to Rumania and therefore, the Complainant was offloaded. It was also confirmed that the double entry transit visa was only issued to seamen and not to businessmen passengers. It was also informed to the Complainant that it was the passenger’s responsibility to see that, he had relevant entry and exit visa and other necessary travel documents. The Opposite Party’s officer also did not help about the Complainant’s baggage, and advised to contact Turkish Airlines for his lost baggage in Istanbul.
13) The Complainant further stated that he wrote a letter to the Turkish Embassy in New Delhi regarding the above incident vide his letter dtd.04/08/04. Turkish Embassy vide its letter dtd.13/08/04 informed the Complainant that, “it is confirmed that the consular had issued Mr.Jitendra Bokadia a double transit visa dtd.30/06/04 No.4700 with a period of validity of 60 days and a period of stay of 7 days at each transit.
14) The Complainant further stated that as he was denied the boarding on the aircraft at Dubai inspite of having all valid documents. He is entitled for compensation for denying the boarding as well as for loss of baggage and mental agony, loss of reputation and loss of business. Therefore, the Complainant has prayed for Rs.17 Lakh for denying the boarding on aircraft with interest @ 18 % p.a. from 07/07/04, Rs.50,000/- towards Hotel expenses and allied expenses, Rs.1 Lakh for loss of baggage, Rs.1 Lakh for mental agony and legal expenses. The Complainant attached documents at Exhibit- ‘A’ to ‘K’ to the complaint in support of his above said allegations.
15) The complaint was filed on 30/08/2006. Notice was served on the Opposite Parties and they appeared through their Ld.Advocates. They have filed their written statements. The Complainant then filed his rejoinders to the written statements of the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties filed affidavits of evidence. We heard the Ld.Advocates of all the parties at length, perused the above said documents filed by the parties and the documents attached to the complaint. We also perused the judgements sited by the parties and seen the written representation submitted by the Ld.Advocate for the Complainant. We then come to the conclusion as follows -
16) The Complainant purchased an air ticket of Opposite Party No.1 from Opposite Party No.2 for the journey from Mumbai to Istanbul. He was to travel by the aeroplane of the Opposite Party No.1 from Mumbai to Dubai and from Dubai to Istanbul on 04/07/04. However, he was not allowed by the Security Officer of Opposite Party no.1 to board a flight No.EK121 from Dubai to Istanbul on 04/07/04 at Dubai. He was humiliated by the Security Officer of the Opposite Party No.1. In further journey his baggages were not handed over to him and hence he suffered mental agony. He also suffered business loss. The above cause of action arose on 04/07/04. The complaint has been filed on 30/08/04. It is certainly filed after two years i.e. after the limitation period is over. The Complainant has not filed any delay condonation application for condoning the delay.
17) In this respect, initially the complaint was filed before the Hon’ble National Commission. The Hon’ble National Commission returned the complaint with the following remark -
“In our view, prima facie, the amount claimed in this complaint is totally exaggerated. Hence, this complaint is not entertained. It would be open to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Forum. The Complainant may file application for condonation of delay, if required, as the matter remained pending before this Commission from 12/04/06 to 22/05/06.
18) Cause of action of this complaint arose on 04/07/04. The Complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum on 30/08/06. As per the provision of Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, prescribed period of limitation for filing complaint is of 2 years. In the mean time the Complainant had filed complaint before the Hon’ble National Commission on 12/04/06. The Complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum on 30/08/06 i.e. after expiry of 2 years and 57 days from the date of cause of action. As mentioned above, Hon’ble National Commission while returning the complaint to the Complainant for filing it before appropriate Forum specifically stated that “Complainant may file application of condonation of delay, if required”. Even though there was a delay of about 57 days and inspite of aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble National Commission, the Complainant has not filed an application for condonation of delay. In view of aforesaid specific order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, it was expected from the Complainant to file application for condonation of delay. Therefore, we find that, the complaint is not filed before this Forum within prescribed period of limitation and hence it is barred by law of limitation. The Complainant has not filed application of condonation of delay and therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed as barred by law of limitation. We therefore, pass the following order -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.383/2006 is hereby dismissed as barred by law of limitation with no order as to cost.
ii.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
