COMPLAINT FILED: 29-05-2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 29-03-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 29TH JANUARY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :-SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1231/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANTS <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 1.M/s.Promac Engineering <br /> Industries Limited<br /> Registered Office:<br /> Off Kanakapura Road Alahalli,<br /> Anjanapura Post, Bangalore–560062.<br /> Represented by:<br /> Senior Manager Administration<br /> Mr.P.A.Nelson S/o.P.D.Antony<br /> Aged about 57 Years,<br /> <br /> 2. Sri Appala Narasimha Raju<br /> S/o.Thirumalaraju Surayanarayanaraju, Aged 41Years, Engineer <br /> M/s.Promac Engineering <br /> Industries Limited<br /> Registered Office:<br /> Off Kanakapura Road Alahalli,<br /> Anjanapura Post, Bangalore–560062.<br /> <br /> 3. Sri Govindasamy Thirunavukkarasu S/o.K.M.Govindaswamy, Aged about 46 Years, M/s.Promac Engineering <br /> Industries Limited<br /> Registered Office:<br /> Off Kanakapura Road Alahalli,<br /> Anjanapura Post, Bangalore–560062.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.P.Usman<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1.TheManager,<br /> Emirates Airlines<br /> Ground Floor Prestige Sigma,<br /> No.3, Vittal Malya Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> 2.The Manager,<br /> ACMA TravelTours Private Ltd,<br /> No.84/1, I Floor Richmond Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 025.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.A.c.Chetan<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainants filed this complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction against Opposite Parties (herein after called as OP) to pay total compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- and to refund the entire Airfare collected for the tickets issued to Complainant No.2 & 3.<br /> <br /> The case of the complainants to be stated in brief is that:-<br /> <br /> 2. The first complainant is a pioneer engineering company in cement manufacturing Machines. Jaguar Overseas Limited, a subsidiary company of Jindal group has got secured a contract for Cement plant at Bangui, Central African Republic. The complainant agreed to manufacture cement plant and erect the same at Bangui. The first complainant wanted to depute the second and third complainants to Central African Republic with representatives of Jagur Company, for a meeting fixed between 09-02-2009 and 12-02-2009 at Bangui by the Government of Central African Republic. The first Complainant booked Air tickets for the second and third complainants from Bangalore to Tripoli with the transit at Dubai from OP1 through OP 2. OP 2 booked tickets in favour of 2 & 3 complainants’ from Tripoli to Bengui in Afriqiyah Airways. An amount of Rs.1,15,082/- was collected by OP 2 on 03-02-2009 for the Airlines tickets for Bangalore-Dubai-Tripoli-Dubai-Bangalore and for a sum of Rs.81,238/- towards the cost of Afriquiyah Airlines tickets for sectors Tripoli-Bangui-Tripoli. On 08-02-2009 at 04-15 hours complainant No.2 & 3 left Bangalore. They were issued boarding passes from Bangalore to Dubai and from Dubai to Tripoli. The boarding passes were issued after all documents checked and verification. After reaching Dubai the complainant No.2 & 3 started boarding the flight to proceed further to Tripoli. At that juncture, they were intercepted, stopped from boarding the flight on the alleged ground that they did not possess passport translated copy in Arabic language and Visa, they were taken to an isolated place treating them like international criminals and they were detained for several hours. The complainants explained to the staff of OP1 at Dubai Airport that after thorough verification by the staff of the OP 1 at Bangalore boarding passes were issued and there was no fault lies on the authorities of the OP1 at Bangalore. The complainant No.2 & 3 were sent back to Bangalore by the staff of OP1 after collecting the return tickets. It is submitted that due to the negligence and hostile attitude of the OP1 and their staff, the first complainant lost a huge business from international market and also suffered loss of reputation which it has earned. Due to failure on the part of the complainants to meet the African clients, the Jaguar Company cancelled business with the first complainant. Due to hostile and unfriendly attitude of the staff of the OP1, complainant No2 & 3 have suffered mental agony, depression and inconvenience and their reputation has been shattered in front of the general public at busy Dubai Airport. OPs refused to refund the Airfare. Hence the complainants got issued legal notice on 18-02-2009 OP 1 has sent a untenable reply admitting that it was a fault of staff of OP 1 at Bangalore in issuing the boarding passes up to Tripoli based on the documents produced by the complainant No.2 & 3. The staff of OP1 neither insisted for translated copy of passport at Bangalore nor objected to travel by complainant No. 2 & 3 with the no objection letter issued by the Government of Central African Republic permitting them to travel to the Central African Republic and obtain Visa on arriving at the Airport. The Complainant No.2 & 3 have suffered immensely due to the negligent and defective act of Ops in serving them while traveling from Bangalore to Tripoli. Hence each of them are claiming Rs.8,00,000/- compensation and for refund of the Airfare. Hence the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance OP 1 filed version contending that the complainant No.1 is not a Consumer, he is not entitled to file present complaint. It is admitted that complainant No.2 & 3 booked Air tickets on the carrier of OP1 to travel from Bangalore to Tripoli via Dubai and back. The complainant No.2 & 3 were issued boarding pass till Tripoli from Bangalore itself and as they were traveling to Dubai they were cleared for travel by Indian Immigration Authorities. However at Dubai Airport they were subjected to further more stringent security and verification of documents who’s complainant No.2 & 3 were denied boarding as they did not possess with them an Arabic translation of their passports which is mandatory requirement for entry to Libya, even though they were not transit at Tripoli. They also did not possess Visa for entry to Bangui and only by a letter stating that Visa will be issued on arrival, the same was not good enough it was duty of complainant No.2 & 3 to ensure that all entry requirement including documents for entry to the host country are valid and carrier cannot be held responsible for the same if the contents and requirements are not made by the passengers as heavy penalties are imposed by the carrier who brings in passengers not having proper documents for entry to host country. It is denied that complainant No.2 & 3 were treated like criminal at Dubai Airport and that off loading report indicates that the fault lies at OP 1 at Bangalore. It is denied that Complainant No.2 & 3 suffered mental agony, shock and depression as alleged in the complaint. Refund of entire tickets cannot be made as complainant No.2 & 3 utilized and traveled on a part of ticket. For the negligent act of complainant No.2 & 3 Op cannot be blamed. It is denied that complainant No.2 & 3 are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. There is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Hence it is prayed to dismiss with costs. <br /> <br /> 4. OP 2 filed version contending that complainant No.2 & 3 approached it for booking a flight tickets from Bangalore to Bangui, since there was no direct flight from Bangalore to Bangui, Op2 booked tickets with OP1 in favour of complainant No.2 & 3 from Bangalore to Tripoli with the transit at Dubai and OP2 booked ticket from Tripoli to Bangui, in Afriquiyah Airways. It is denied that complainant No.1 booked the ticket for complainant No.2 and 3. OP-2 cannot refund entire ticket as complainant No.2 & 3 utilized and traveled on the part of the ticket and it was clearly the part of the complainant No.2 & 3 who should have ensured that all documents were in order, prior to the departure from Bangalore they were well aware that they have had an Visa for entry to Bangui or did they possess an Arabic translation of passport for entry to Libya which is a requirement. The complainant No.2 & 3 did not contact OP-2 for seeking refund of Air fare. Further OP 2 asked them to give a letter to refund for any utilization portion of ticket. But they did not give any letter. Further though OP2 refunded sum of Rs.73,238/- cost of tickets from Tripoli to Bangui-Tripoli under credit note dated 04-03-2009 and they were informed to give letter with regard to claim remaining unutilized portion of tickets. They have suppressed this fact. Complainant No.2 & 3 denied boarding at Dubai since they did not have Arabic translation of their passport for entry to Libya and Visa for entry to Bangui. The complainants have not out any case for negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP-2. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.<br /> <br /> OP-2 produced credit note with memo for having refunded Air fare to an extent of Rs.73,238/- in respect of unutilized portion of the ticket from Tripoli to Bangui to Tripoli and credited that amount to the account of complainant No.1.<br /> <br /> 5. Complainant No.2 and 3 filed affidavit evidence to substantiate the complaint averments. One Orhan Abbas the Vice-President filed affidavit evidence in support of OP-1 version. The Manager of OP-2 filed affidavit evidence in support of OP-2 defence version. <br /> <br /> 6. The complainants and OP-1 filed written arguments and produced documents. Arguments on both the sides heard. Points for our consideration are:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP 1 & 2?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. We record our findings on the above points as follows:-<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Negative <br /> Point No.2:- Negative <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 8. It is not in dispute that the complainant No.2 & 3 through OP-2 booked flight tickets from Bangalore to Tripoli with the transit at Dubai with OP-1 and from Tripoli to Bangui and Bangui to Tripoli in Afriquiyah Airlines through OP-2. The complainant No.1 claims that complainant 2 & 3 who are working as engineers with it were deputed to Bangui Central African Republic as it’s representatives for attending a meeting fixed between 09-02-2009 and 12-02-2009 at Bangui Government of Central African Republic with regard to a contract for Cement plant to be erected at Bangui, for that purpose; Air tickets for complainant No.2 & 3 were booked by it for attending the said meeting. <br /> <br /> 9. On 08-02-2009 at 4-15 Hrs complainant 2 & 3 traveled in flight No.EK 0569 from Bangalore to Dubai in a plane belonging to OP-1. After reaching Dubai, in order to proceed further to Tripoli they started boarding the flight, they were intercepted and stopped from boarding the flight, on the ground that they did not possess visas for entry to Bangui and they did not possess translated Libya Passport copies in Arabic language which was mandatory for entry to Libya. Complainant 2 & 3 were sent back to Bangalore after collecting the return tickets by the staff of the OP-1 at Dubai. <br /> <br /> 10. It is contended for the complainants that it was the duty of the OP-1 to inform the complainants properly at the time of verification of documents or at the time of purchase of tickets and further at the time of issuing boarding passes with regard to possession of the Arabic translated Passport. While issuing boarding passes all the checks and verification done by the staff of OP-1 failed to inform the complainants that they should have Arabic translated Passport which is mandatory requirement for entry to Libya. No objection letter issued by Government of Central African Republic in favour of the complainant No.2 & 3 clearly provides that complainant No.2 & 3 are visiting Bangui Central African Republic as per convinent flights available will arrange visas on arrival. On the basis of these letters the staff of OP-1 at Bangalore issued boarding passes. The staff of OP-1 at Dubai has not accepted these letters and insisted for visas for entry to Bangui. Thus it is contended that OP-1 having failed to inform the complainants regarding the mandatory requirement of possessing Arabic translation copies of passports and not allowing the complainant No.2 & 3 for taking onward journey to Tripoli insisting for visa without taking into consideration the letters produced showing that the visa will be provided on arrival, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1. Further OP-1 has not refunded the Air fare inspite of legal notice. OP-2 has also not informed the complainants regarding the mandatory requirement of possessing Arabic translated copies of Passport for entry to Libya.<br /> <br /> 11. The document 9 & 10 produced by the complainants along with complaint are the copies of offloading report with regard to complainant No.2 & 3; reasons for offloading shown is ‘No Arabic Transalation’ ‘Pax not holding visa just letter’. From these documents it becomes clear that the complainant 2 & 3 were sent back to Bangalore from Dubai and they were not allowed to take onward journey to Tripoli and then to Bangui as they did not possess visas for entry to Bangui and the Arabic translated copies of Passport for entry to Libya. After perusing the document 5 & 6 produced by the complainants we are of the view that these letters are not issued by Government of Central African Republic but these letters are by the host company by Bangui. On the basis of such letters without possessing visas the complainants could not have traveled from Bangalore to go to Bangui. Therefore there is no merit in the contention of the complainants that these letters were issued by Government of Central African Republic; so as to say that the staff of OP-1 at Dubai should not have insisted for visas as the visas were assured to be made available on arrival at Bangui. At the time of issuing boarding passes at Bangalore the staff of OP-1 allowed the complainants to travel on the basis of the letters issued by host company of Bangui and without informing the complainants regarding mandatory requirement of possessing Arabic translated copies of Passport for entry to Libya, as the Indian immigration authority cleared the same without raising any objection.<br /> <br /> 12. It is contended for the OP-1 that it was not the duty of OP-1 to inform the complainants about all the requirements for traveling to Bangui. It was the duty of the complainants to keep all the documents required for the purpose of attending the meeting by visiting Bangui. Possessing visa for entry to Bangui was within the knowledge of the complainants but still on the basis on the letters issued by host company, they had undertaken the journey. Besides Arabic translated passport must have been ascertained by them and possessed such required document, the staff of OP-1 cannot be blamed only on the ground that boarding passes up to Tripoli were issued. Further it is contended that the complainants are not entitled for refund of Air fare in respect of utilized portion of the tickets. OP-2 has already refunded the unutilized portion of the ticket Tripoli - Bangui - Tripoli but the complainants suppressed the said material fact. As the security check at Dubai revealed that the complainants did not possess the required documents, hence they were sent back to Bangalore. <br /> <br /> 13. It is contended for the OP-2 that the service of OP-2 was engaged only for the purpose of booking the tickets; it was not his duty to inform anything about the required documents for travel purpose. OP-2 has already returned Air fare in respect of unutilized portion of the tickets Tripoli to Bangui to Tripoli after deducting the necessary charges, earlier to lodging the complaint but the same has been suppressed by the complainants. Thus it is contended that the complainant have not made out any case against OP-2.<br /> <br /> 14. We have perused the credit note produced by OP-2 for having refunded the Air fare to an extent of Rs.73,238/- on 04-03-2009 and credited the same to the account of complainant No.1 in respect of unutilized portion of Air ticket Tripoli - Bangui - Tripoli. The said amount was refunded much earlier to the complaint but complainants have suppressed the same as the said amount was credited on 04-03-2009, the complaint has been lodged on 29-05-2009. OP-2 is only an agent for booking the Air ticket; there is no responsibility on his part to inform the complainants as to what are all the necessary documents which they should possess while visiting Bangui. Therefore we are of the view that the complainants have not made out any case against the OP-2.<br /> 15. OP-1 along with version has produced the copy of the letter in the form of notice issued by Consulate Department – Dubai informing the visitors that all foreigners traveling to Libya holding Non-Arab passports must have relevant passport details page translated into Arabic and authenticated (Stamped) by the translator from 10th November’ 2007. From this document it becomes clear that the complainants should have possessed Arabic translated passport for entry to Libya. Admittedly they were not holding such Arabic translated passport, in view of the same they were not allowed to board the flight for onward journey to Tripoli. Further admittedly complainant No.2 & 3 were not holding visas for entry to Bangui, only on the basis of the letter providing that the visas will be made arranged on arrival; they had undertaken the journey. Boarding passes at Bangalore were issued as the immigration authority of India cleared the documents without raising any objection. At Dubai when the complainants were subjected to security check and they were found not possessing the required documents like Arabic translated passport and visas; they were not allowed to take onward journey. Merely because at the time of issuing boarding passes up to Tripoli the staff of OP-1 has not raised any objection with regard to the documents required for travel; it cannot be said that the staff of OP-1 at Dubai should have allowed the complainants to take onward journey without possessing the valid documents. OP-1 as a carrier taking passengers without valid documents would have been made to pay penalty in the host country. If these complainants had an onward visas for Central African Republic, then Arabic translated passport would not have been necessary as they would have been transiting Tripoli. Since the complainants did not possess the onward visas for entry to Bangui as a result Arabic translated passport were insisted and the same was not produced, hence they were denied onward journey to Tripoli. It was the responsibility of the complainants to ensure that all travel documents are in order before starting journey. The complainants must have enquired the required information regarding the visas and Arabic Translated copy of passport from Libyaian Ambassy in India. For the legal notice got issued by the complainants, a proper reply has been sent by the OPs denying the liability.<br /> <br /> After going through the entire pleadings, affidavit evidence and documents produced, we are of the considered view that the complainants failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. In view of the same the complainants are not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed. Accordingly while answering point No.1 & 2 in Negative we proceed to pass the following :<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainants is dismissed. Considering the nature of dispute no order as to costs. <br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of March 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> NRS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainants is dismissed. Considering the nature of dispute no order as to costs. <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />