Haryana

StateCommission

A/734/2015

AEROFLOT RUSSIAN AIRLINES - Complainant(s)

Versus

GAURAV TEHRI - Opp.Party(s)

NAVIN MAHAJAN

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      734 of 2015

Date of Institution:      07.09.2015

Date of Decision :      27.11.2015

 

Aeroflot Russian Airlines through its Commercial Manager 510, 5^th Floor, Ansal Bhawan, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

 

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Gaurav Tehri s/o Sh. Shashi Bhushan Tehri, Resident of House No.76/19, Near K.T. Purewal, Colony Handloom, Panipat, Haryana.

Respondent/Complainant

2.      Russian Embassy, Embassy of Russian Federation, Shintipath, Chankyapuri, New Delhi-110021.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Navin Mahajan, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Manoj Tehri, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Respondent No.2 performa party.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of Aeroflot Russian Airlines-Opposite Party No.1, is directed against the order dated 20^th January, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.243 of 2013.

2.      Gourav Tehri-Complainant (respondent No.1 herein) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, averring that he is an International Student and studying in VITEBSK State Medical University, Vitebask, Belarus, where he took admission in the year 2008 in M.B.B.S. Course for six years.

3.      The complainant booked a ticket of MA flight vide No.553367 from the opposite parties, for May 25^th, 20013 from Minsk (Capital of Belarus) to Delhi via Moscow. He boarded his flight from Minsk to Delhi via Moscow on May 25^th, 2013. The flight reached at Moscow at about 1.00 P.M. as per Russian time. There was stay of about six hours at Moscow Airport and then he was to change his flight for Delhi. The departure time of next flight was 7.25 P.M. as per Russian time.

4.      The complainant got the boarding pass for the Aeroflot flight SU-232 from Moscow. He reached at immigration counter at 6.40 p.m.  On being shown his passport, visa etcetera by the complainant, the concerned officials at the airport conducted verification/investigation upto 7.10 P.M. which led to departure of his flight. He was not provided any alternative flight. The complainant had transit visa for one day only from May 25^th, 12.00 midnight to 26^th May, 12.00 midnight. The opposite parties advised the complainant to purchase a new ticket. However, the complainant was not having money to purchase the ticket, so his parents sent money in the account of COSMO Travels and then he purchased the ticket for Rs.25,000/-. Alleging it a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, he filed complaint before the District Forum.

5.      Notice being issued, the opposite party No.1 contested complaint by filing reply taking preliminary objections regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. It was stated that the complainant had booked the ticket through one M/s Golden Tour and Travels, adjoining State Bank of Patiala Panipat, which was neither the agent of the opposite party No.1 nor was authorized by it.  The complainant had used first part of journey from Minsk to Moscow and taken refund of its connecting journey from Moscow to Delhi.  In fact, the complainant had planned to visit Moscow City. He had already taken the Transit Visa to visit Moscow. However, as per his ticket, he was to stay at Moscow Airport during transit for six hours only, in which no city visit/tour was possible. Thus, the complainant deliberately missed his connecting flight of Moscow-Delhi on May 25^th, 2013. He got extended his transit visa upto May 27^th, 2013 and thereafter he came to India by purchasing a fresh ticket on May 27^th, 2013. By his first trip of the journey, he reached at Moscow at 1.00 P.M. on May 25^th, 2013. He had a connecting flight from Moscow to Delhi on the same day at 7.25 P.M. but since he was a transit passenger, he was not required to cross the immigration of Moscow, the Russian Federation. Denying the allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

6.      On appraisal of pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, the District Forum vide order under challenge in this appeal, allowed the complaint directing the appellant/opposite party as under:-

“In view of the discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- as cost of compensation for harassment etc. cost of litigation quantified at Rs.3300/- is also allowed to be paid by opposite party to the complainant.”

7.      On behalf of the appellant/opposite party, it was urged that the difference of fare from Moscow to Delhi has already been refunded to the complainant and still the District Forum, Panipat has directed appellant to return the amount with interest. It was also contended that the complainant had taken a transit visa for six hours and was late to reach Airport for check in, due to which his flight was missed, therefore, he was not entitled for any compensation.

8.      The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is tenable. Indisputably, the flight from Minsk reached at Moscow at 1.00 P.M. The complainant had obtained a transit visa at Moscow for six hours. The flight from Moscow to Delhi was scheduled at 7.25 P.M. as per Russian Time, on the same day. Though, as per the complainant he reached in time at Moscow airport, however, as per the appellant/opposite party for International flights, the passenger is required to report at Airport three hours before departure of flight and the boarding is closed one hour before the departure of flight. Herein as per complainant himself, he reached Airport at 6.40 P.M. and since the flight was to departure at 7.25 P.M, the security persons did not permit the complainant to enter, resultantly, he missed the flight. The complainant got extended visa for two days. The appellant/opposite party refunded the difference of fare between Moscow and Delhi.

9.      Even if the version of the complainant is accepted that he reached at the airport in time but was not permitted by the security personnel to enter, though there is no evidence in this regard, yet the Airlines cannot be blamed for it, as the complainant should not leave the lounge and if after obtaining transit visa left Airport he was again required to undergo security check, which was not under the control of the Airlines. If security agency did not permit the complainant to enter Airport being late, no deficiency can be alleged against the airlines.

10.    As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 27.11.2015

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL