BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 10th day of February 2017
Filed on : 07-06-2016
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.323/2016
Between
Mohammed Shajihan V.K., : Complainant
S/o. Kunju Mohammed, (By Adv. Rajesh Rajagopala Pillai,
Vathussery house, Kuttamassery, M/s. Raman Menon & Co. 3rd
Thottumugham P.O., Aluva, floor, Ram-Meena Building,
Ernakulam. Now working Valanjambalam, Sahodharan
under sponsorship of Ayyappan road, Kochi-16)
Mr. Mohammed Thani,
Mohammed Abdulla Mulakkath,
P.O. Box No. 41205,
Dodha State of Qatar
rep. by his son Mr. Muhsin. V.S.
S/o. ShajihanV.K.,Vathussery
house, Kuttamassery,
Tottumugham P.O.,
Aluva,Ernakulam.
And
1. Fly World Holidays, : Opposite parties
Opposite Cheraman Masjid, (1st and 2nd O.P.s by Adv. Prakash P
Kodungallur-680 664, George, Prakash & Associates,
rep. by its Proprietor. 2nd Floor, Viva II Building, K.K.
Padmanabhan road,
(South End), Cochin-682 018)
2. Sri Lankan Airlines,
1st floor, Kandamkulathi Towers,
Opp. Maharajas College Ground
M.G. Road, Ernakulam-682 011,
rep. by its Manager.
3. Sri Lankan Airlines,
Nedumbassery International
Airport, Nedumbassery P.O.,
Ernakulam-683 585,
rep. by its Manager.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant’s case
2. The complainant is working in Doha-Qatar and is represented by his son in this consumer complaint. The complainant was granted with a work visa to work as a foreman in a company in Qatar for a period of 2 years from 10-06-2014. Therefore the complainant belonging to Aluva in Kerala had decided to book an Air ticket from Cochin to Doha Via Colombo in Srilankan Airlines to take up the job. On 28-05-2014 the ticket was booked through the 1st opposite party to travel in the flight belonging to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties on 09-06-2014. The complainant was issued an e-ticket No. 6035267666946 and Galilio reservation No. 7-GKJ-96. His travel schedule was to travel in flight No. UL 168 from Cochin to Colombo and then by UL 217 flight from Colombo to Doha on 09-06-2014. He was scheduled arrived at Doha at 9.15 p.m. on 09-06-2014, so as to join duty on the next day. The complainant boarded the flight No. UL 168 after completing all emigration clearance from Cochin and the flight reached Colombo as per schedule. The Srilankan airlines authorities in Colombo did not permit the complainant to enter the connecting flight for the best reason known to them. The complainant was given the boarding pass to board the connecting flight from Colombo to Doha. Since the fight from Colombo to Doha was over booked the complainant was denied boarding without giving any explanation. The complainant was detained in Colombo Airport for about 12 hours without even providing basic needs and amenities. On the next day, the complainant was sent back to Cochin by the Colombo Cochin flight at 7.30 a.m. Immediately on arrival at Cochin the complainant had lodged a complaint before the 3rd opposite party. As the complainant could not join duty on 10-06-2014 he lost his job due to the clear deficiency in service and commission of unfair trade practice at the hands of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. To the demand of the complainant alleging deficiency in service, through an advocate notice, the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties denied the complainant’s contention contending that the documents held by the complainant were not in order to fulfil the Qatar immigration requirements. Such a contention was taken by the opposite party falsely in fact all the travel documents of the complainant were intact and there was no reason stated by the opposite parties as to what was the error in the travel documents of the complainant. The complainant however, arranged another ticket by a different airline and travelled to Doha with a very same sets of travel documents without any issue on 12-06-2014. The complainant was treated very badly by the opposite party when he was at Colombo airport. The opposite parties are liable to return the ticket fare, compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite parties and all of them were served. They were set ex-parte.
4. When the matter came up for complainant’s evidence the complainant filed a proof affidavit and Exbts. A1 to A7 documents were marked. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. The following issues were considered.
Whether the complainant had proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?
Reliefs and costs
6. Issue No. i. Exbt. A1 is the authorization issued by the complainant through the embassy of India, Doha authorizing his son Shri. Mushin V.S. to conduct this case on behalf of the complainant. Exbt. A2 is the photo copy of his work visa issued by the State of Qatar on 14-05-2014 which had a validity up to 01-11-2014 to work as a foreman. Exbt. A3 is a ticket issued by the 1st opposite party for the travel of the complainant from Cochin to Colombo and to Colombo to Doha. The ticket is seen to have issued on 28-05-2014 and both the tickets were confirmed. Exbt. A4 is the copy of advocate notice issued on behalf of the complainant on 01-11-2014 . Exbt. A5 is the reply notice issued to the counsel for the complainant contending that the complainant was denied acceptance due to the reason that the documents he was holding were not in order to fulfil Qatar immigration requirements. The allegation that he was not provided with food is also denied. It was also contended that under article 7.1.7 and 13.2 of the Shrilankan Airlines conditions of carriage for passengers and baggage states that the airlines may refuse to carry a passenger in the reasonable exercise of their discretion where it appeared that the passenger does not have valid travel documents or where a passenger seeks to enter a country without a valid travel evidence. The liability of the airlines for consequential damages were also denied. Exbt. A7 is the ticket taken by the complainant to travel by Qatar airways on 12-06-2016 consequent to the deportation of the complainant by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties.
7. On going through the complaint, the proof affidavit and the documents mentioned above it is seen that the complainant had eminently proved his case in this case. The allegation of the complainant that he was ill-treated and had suffered mental agony at Colombo Airport in Srilanka is not seen controverted by the opposite parties despite receipt of notice issued to them in speed post and received by them as early on 16-02-2015. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties 2 and 3 did not assign any specific reason as to why and how the travel documents of the complainant were treated as unworthy. A mere recital that the travel documents were not proper, will not exclude the opposite parties from their liability to compensate the complainant who was carrying a confirmed ticket with proper travel documents. The fact that the complainant was taken by M/s. Qatar Airways from Cochin to Doha on the same travel documents would prove that the action of the staff of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties in denying the entry to the flight from Colombo to Doha was not only highhanded but also an action of unfairness in commercial practice which would amount to unfair trade practice as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. We are satisfied that the complainant had suffered deficient service at the hands of the opposite parties and the issue is therefore found in favour of the complainant.
Issue No. ii. In the result, the complaint stands allowed by passing an order directing the opposite parties 2 and 3.
i. to refund the entire ticket price of Rs. 9,200/- with interest @12% p.a. from 07-06-2016 the date of filing the complaint till the date of realization.
ii. Directing the opposite parties 2 and 3 to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed against the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
iii. The opposite parties 2 and 3 also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards the costs of this proceedings.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10th day of February 2017
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Letter of authorization
A2 : Copy of passport
A3 : Copy of Air ticket
A4 : True copy of of lawyer notice
dt. 01-11-2014
A5 : Reply notice
A6 : Letter dt. 28-09-2014
A7 : Copy of reservation
Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
