Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/55/2023

LT. COL SUNIL SINGH PARIHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

GULF AIR THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - Opp.Party(s)

VIKRAM VIR SHARDA

01 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/55/2023
Date of Institution	:	26/01/2023
Date of Decision	:	01/08/2024

       

                                       

                       

 

 

 

Lt. Col. Sunil Singh Parihar (Retd.) son of late Shri Ram Rattan Parihar, aged 64, resident of House No.133, First Floor, Sector 36A, Chandigarh 160036.

                                ...  Complainant

Versus

Gulf Airlines c/o Gulf Air B.S.C (C) through its Chief Executive Officer having registered office at 711, 7^th Floor, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110001.

…. Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
ARGUED BY:
	Sh. Jugansh Goyal, Advocate, Proxy for Sh.Vikram Vir Sharda, Counsel for complainant
	OP ex-parte.

       

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint pleading that by using the online portal services of My-Trip through its website, he had booked air tickets from New Delhi to Bahrain to Cairo with Gulf Air (OP) in its flight No.GF131. Complainant had also booked a return ticket with the same airline in its flight No.GF70 for 13.8.2022 by paying total sum of Rs.43,625/-.  On 13.8.2022, when the complainant was about to board the flight No.GF70 (hereinafter referred to as “flight in question”) run by the OP, he was not allowed by the check-in staff.  Resultantly, complainant also missed his connecting flight which he was supposed to board from Bahrain to New Delhi.  In this situation, complainant had to buy another ticket for his return journey on 14.8.2022. The complainant alleged that as he was forced to buy new ticket at the last minute, so he had to pay Rs.55,234/- for buying new tickets. The complainant further alleged that he was illegally denied to board the flight in question by the check-in staff of the OP.  He has also paid Egyptian Pound 2294/- which is equivalent to Rs.6,194/- in Indian currency for the night stay as room charges of the hotel where he stayed.  The complainant registered a complaint with the OP and asked for refund of extra expenses spent by him for not allowing him to board the scheduled flight.  During correspondence, OP replied to the complainant through email that they regretted that their check-in staff were unable to accommodate him on the said flight due to the reason that the complainant’s travel documents did not meet the necessary requirements to be approved for travel and they declined the request of the complainant for refund of extra expenses spent by him on the abovesaid ground.   It is further alleged that the complainant alongwith several other passengers were not allowed to board the flight by the check-in staff for want of COVID self declaration form.  The complainant mentioned that he showed his fully vaccinated certificate issued by the Govt. of India on the counter but the staff insisted to show self declaration form.  The complainant alleged that he explained that he had got the requisite self declaration form filed online but the check-in staff ignored him.  The complainant has further alleged that he tried to approach senior executive of the OP at the airport but he also offered no help and was rather rude to the complainant.  The complainant further alleged that some other passengers having the same issue and who like him had filed the self declaration form online were given the boarding passes and thereafter the counter was closed.  The complainant alleged it highly discriminatory on the part of the OP to allow other passengers to board the flight and deny him to board the flight.  It is further alleged that the Self Declaration Form (Air Suivdha) which is attached as Annexure C-9 is an auto generated document and cannot be obtained post dated, therefore, it is evident that the complainant had all the necessary documents which were required for travel.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking refund of the amount paid in excess alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2.        Despite due service, OP did not put in appearance before this Commission and accordingly it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.3.2023.
3.        The complainant filed affidavit and documents in support his case.
4. We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and gone through the documents on record, including written submissions.
5.        The main issue involved in the present consumer complaint is whether check-in staff at the airport were justified in denying the complainant to board the flight in question or not? 

              In order to find out answer to above mentioned question, the following facts and circumstances in the right of relevant law are necessary to be discussed.

6.        The complainant in his consumer complaint has himself alleged that he was denied to board the flight in question by the check-in staff at the airport for want of COVID self declaration form. The complainant has admitted that he did not produce the self declaration form before the check-in staff at the airport and alleged that the check-in staff had allowed some passengers to board the flight in question even though they did not possess the self declaration form but denied the complainant to board, which caused discrimination between the complainant and other passengers. This is mere allegation of the complainant that other passengers were allowed by the check-in staff at the airport to board the flight in question without having self declaration form concerning COVID-19.  However, there is nothing produced on record by the complainant that the other passengers were allowed by the check-in staff at the airport to board the flight in question.  In the absence of any cogent proof, the same cannot be considered to be true.

              Further, as far as the allegation of discrimination is concerned, this Commission has no powers to decide the matters concerning discrimination between individuals and only the Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court exercise such powers to provide relief to the affected persons.

7.        Lastly, the complainant has alleged that he has applied online self declaration form, copy of which is attached as Annexure C-9, which is an auto generated document and cannot be obtained post dated.  In this regard it is observed that the complainant went to board the subject flight on 13.8.2022 whereas in the document (Annexure C-9) the date of arrival is mentioned as 14.8.2022, hence it is proved that the complainant had not submitted the online declaration form before his arrival to board the flight in question on 13.8.2022 and had submitted the same afterwards i.e. after denial by the check-in staff at the airport to board the flight in question on 13.8.2022.  As such, since the complainant himself did not meet the necessary requirements to be approved for travel, so the check-in staff at the airport rightly refused him to board the flight in question for want of self declaration form, which was neither in possession of the complainant nor applied by him online at that point of time. 
8.        In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP and the present consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
10.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 01/08/2024 hg	(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER