BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Sri G.Sreenivas Rao,M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR), Male Member
Thursday, the 31st day of March, 2011
C.C. No. 28 of 2010
Between:
Suman Bonkurthi S/o Gangadher Bonakurthi,
Aged 25 years, Occ: Student in UK,
Temporarily came down to India,
H.No.10-18, Vidyanagar Colony,
Pothireddipally village, Sangareddy mandal,
Medak district. Andhra Pradesh,
State India. Pin – 500 295. ….Complainant
And
1) Kingfisher Airlines,
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Kingfisher Airlines Limited,
Kingfisher House Western Express Highway,
Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 400 099. India.
2) Make my trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. 103,
Udyog Vihar Phase-I, Gurgaon – 122 616.
Haryana. INDIS.E-Mail: …..Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 22-03-2011 in the presence of M/s B.A. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for Complainant and that of M/s Vijaya Sagi, Advocate for the Opposite party No.1 and that of Sri G. Hanumanth Reddy and G. Subhash Chander, Advocates for Opposite party No.2, and upon hearing arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Se Smt Meena Ramanathan, Member)
1. Complainant filed complaint under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 alleging that he is passport holder bearing No.F5697195 issued by Government of India valid till 29-11-2015. That he purchased two-way air tickets by paying an amount of Rs.28,031/- to travel to Vietnam on 23-10-2009 from Hyderabad (Shamshabad Airport) through the second opposite party online. The journey was scheduled from Shamshabad to Calcutta and
there from to Vietnam on first opposite party airlines. As scheduled, complainant had been to Calcutta from Hyderabad on 23-10-2009 and there, for reasons best known to the staff of first opposite party - stopped him and made him wait the in Airport for 3 hours. Thereafter they informed him that they are not allowing him to travel further, without giving any valid reason. Complainant was taken aback with shock and surprise as he was treated as an accused and they even failed to serve a glass of water, and at last, they directed him to go back to Hyderabad. After facing such trauma, complainant said to have requested the staff of first opposite party by the name of Yella, to allow him to travel upto Hyderabad on their flight but they discarded his request. As such, he was forced to purchase a ticket for Rs.4979/- and travelled on Indigo Airlines on 23-10-2009 and reached Hyderabad. The acts and misdeeds of the first opposite party caused mental agony, bodily tension, shame, financial loss and injury to him. Complainant put the same to the notice of first opposite party on 26-10-2009 through E-mail and requested them to settle the matter and refund money. To which, they replied that ‘the required documentation to your Visa to Vietnam was not complete’ on 6-11-2009 through E-mail.
It is further alleged that on 06-11-2009, as per scheduled programme, he flew from Shamshabad to Vietnam on Thai Airways. He successfully completed the travel on the same Visa confirmation reference No.B09038832/P2, dated 04-09-2009 issued by Vietnam embassy. On his arrival at Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) Airport, on 7-11-2009, he was issued Visa on paying 50$ at Visa counter. He came back to Hyderabad on 16-11-2009 as per schedule. From the above, it is clear that the opposite parties did not render efficient services and their services are deficient which compelled him to travel further to Bangkok. Hence the present complaint is filed with a prayer to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony and bodily pressure; to award Rs.9,50,000/- for rendering services; to refund Rs.4979/- towards purchase of Air ticket from Calcutta to Hyderabad together with costs of the complaint.
2. Opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that the complaint of complainant is false and baseless and is filed with a view to extract monies and as attempt to misuse the process of law and drag them into false litigation. It contended that no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum and that his main grievance lies against Vietnam embassy and Immigration Department, Kolkata and Golden Sun Travel, HCM City which were not made as parties to his complaint. Nothing
is whispered against them. Since there arose no cause of action against them, it is baseless and flagrant abuse of the process of law. Complainant’s booking with it was only upto Bangkok i.e., for travel from Hyderabad to Kolkata and from Kolkata to Bangkok. Complainant did not book to fly to Vietnam by its Airlines. The fact is that when complainant was asked to produce the Visa documents allowing him to travel to Vietnam, he could not produce the same, hence the Immigration authorities at Kolkata also questioned about his Visa and raised objection on his travel without proper Visa documents. There was no Visa in his passport but he produced a copy of letter issued by the “Immigration Department” of Socialist Republic of Vietnam which was not a Visa document. The said document was forwarded by the Security Supervisor, Kolkata to their Airport Manager, Bangkok for confirmation from the Bangkok Immigration authorities as to whether it was a valid document or not. In turn, they were informed that the said document is not a valid document to get entry in Vietnam and complainant will have to get Visa on arrival at Vietnam. Accordingly the Complainant was informed and thereafter he himself chose not to travel and desired to go to Chennai for getting proper Visa on his passport. Complainant suppressed all these facts and presented a new story. The allegation that he was treated like an accused are wholly false and baseless. Complainant desired to travel to Chennai and enquired about the available flights to Chennai which they provided to him. It denied the travel of complainant on Indigo for want of knowledge. There is no negligence or unfair trade practice on their part and the complainant is not entitled for any relief or reliefs. The amounts claimed are exaggerated without any base and for false reasons. It further stated that complainant changed his travel programme at the last moment and his airfare was liable for deduction of the cancellation charges, however, as a gesture of goodwill, it did not deduct anything from his airfare and refunded the full fare. Complainant suppressed this fact, for which, he is liable to be punished for this conduct. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable.
3. Opposite party No.2 filed its reply stating that complaint is liable to be dismissed against it as there are no specific allegations made against it and that it is wrongfully made as party. As per instructions of complainant, it booked and issued valid air tickets to him to and fro from Hyderabad to Vietnam. The allegations in the complaint do not constitute any deficiency in service against it. As contended by the complainant, the OP1 staff stopped him from boarding the scheduled flight at Kolkata Airport and subsequently he returned to Hyderabad and re-scheduled his travel programme and accordingly travelled Vietnam on 6-11-2009 from Shamshabad Airport
through Thai Airways which this opposite party provided. This opposite party is not responsible in any way for the inconvenience caused to the complainant during his journey at Kolkata International Airport and is not responsible for the complainant’s mental torture, physical strain, financial loss, etc. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint against it.
4. Both the parties have filed their affidavits reiterating the facts stated in the complaint and the counter respectively. On behalf of the complainant, Ex.A1 to A11 are marked. On behalf of the first opposite party, Ex.B1 to B3 are marked. Both sides also filed written arguments.
5. The point for consideration is 1) whether there Complainant is a “consumer” as defined under the Act? 2) Whether this forum is ousted with territorial jurisdiction and whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party in stopping the complainant at Kolkata? And if so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?
6. Ex.A1 is copy of passport of complainant. Ex.A2 is copy of ticket details of complainant’s journey booked through second opposite party, dated 9-9-2009. Ex.A3 is the details of permission to enter and exit Vietnam of three persons, wherein the name of complainant is shown at Sl.No.3 and he is permitted to enter and exit Vietnam multiple times from 23-10-2009 to 22-11-2009. It is also mentioned therein that the three persons permitted therein are permitted to pick up their visas upon arrival at Noi Bai, Tan Son Nhai or Da Nang International Airport. Ex.A4 is the copy of Indigo Airticket from Calcutta to Hyderabad for Rs.4,979/-. Ex.A5 is the copy of complaint lodged by complainant with the first OP. Ex.A6 is the copy of response of first OP to Ex.A5 complaint. Ex.A7 is the copy of ticket details of complainant’s re-scheduled journey, dated 4-11-2009. Ex.A8 is Photostat copy of the passport along with boarding pass showing the journey stated to be performed by Complainant on Thai Airways. Ex.A9 is Photostat copy of passport contains the stamping of Vietnam Immigration on 07-11-2009 (both entry and exit). Ex.A10 is the repetition of Ex.A2 along with tickets booked at the first instance. Ex.A11 is the photocopy of payment summary for Rs.28,031/-.
6. Ex.B1 is the attested copy of internal letter dated 26-10-2009 of the first opposite party. Ex.B2 is the attested copy of reply given to complainant on 6-11-2009. Ex.B3 is the refund voucher for Rs.21,436/-
made to the complainant.
Point:
7. There is no dispute as regards to disallowing the complainant at Calcutta to board the plane to Bangkok. There is no dispute as regards to the return of Complainant to Hyderabad. The first opposite party contends that there is no deficiency in service on its part. Mainly it contends that this Forum is ousted with territorial jurisdiction. The fact remains, as admitted by second opposite party that the complainant booked the tickets and they confirmed the same. As per Ex.A2, he is a student and a permanent resident of Sangareddy. He booked the tickets of first opposite party Airlines through second opposite party on Internet at Sangareddy. It is not in dispute that the complainant was kept for three hours stranded at the Calcutta International Airport on the ground of confirmation of Visa.
As regards to territorial jurisdiction, it is very pertinent to note that any part of cause of action will not vitiate the entire proceedings. As stated, complainant booked the tickets at Sangareddy district through Internet, hence, this Forum is empowered to take the matter for consideration. Hence, question of not having territorial jurisdiction does not arise at all.
It is submitted by the first opposite party that the papers submitted by Complainant during checking were not Visa but Photostat copy. The complainant, later proceeded to Bangkok with the same papers and there is no change in letter or word, which can be evident from the Ex.A3. There is no explanation from the first opposite party on this aspect. The Thai Airlines through which the complainant flew had permitted the Complainant on the same Ex.A3 which the first opposite party stopped him from flying. And this act of the first opposite party caused complainant much humiliation, pain, insult, inconvenience apart from monetary loss. The complainant had to make the return journey to his village and had to re-schedule his journey after a week. These facts amount to clear negligence and deficiency of service. Except stating that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, the first opposite party failed to answer as to why it failed to provide even a glass of water to the complainant for the stranded period of three hours, which in itself speaks volumes of its negligent attitude towards the passengers. There is no dispute from both sides as regards to refund of money of unperformed journey by complainant.
Complainant made a bald assertion that as he underwent inconvenience, humiliation and monetary loss, he wants Rs.19,50,000/- as compensation and refund of Rs.4979/- towards journey performed from
Calcutta to Hyderabad. Nothing is produced on record by complainant to show that he is entitled to the compensation of Rs.19,50,000/-. Even the complainant failed to furnish the details of his income and the reason for which he intended to go to Bangkok/Vietam and further failed to furnish the loss occasioned to him on account of not performing the journey to Bangkok/Vietnam within the stipulated time. Without any basis and documentary evidence, this Forum is not in a position to grant the compensation as claimed by the complainant, however, weighing the inconvenience, insult, humiliation and monetary loss caused to complainant, it is proper and just to grant the compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant towards deficient services rendered by the first opposite party. This amount would suffice the ordeals of the complainant. In the above context, it is further fortified with the decision rendered in R.P.No.47/2007 by Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi reported in 2011(1) CCC 13 (NS). Simply saying that the complainant left to Chennai on his own accord, the first opposite party cannot absolve itself from its liability towards its passenger by not serving the complainant for the stranded period of three hours. The definition of the term ‘service’ as enshrined in Section 2(1)(o) of C.P. Act is all embracing and includes within its ambit the services of taking care of its passenger during the stranded period. Service providers have thus to be very careful in serving their customers and not disown their responsibility by stating that the complainant left on his own accord to Chennai. Except stating that complainant went to Chennai to get Visa endorsement, nothing is brought by the first opposite party on record to prove the same. Accordingly, the issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
8. Having gone through the decisions submitted by the first opposite party - the facts therein are different to the facts on hand. The preliminary objections petition filed by the first opposite party as regards to territorial jurisdiction becomes in-fructuous in the light of passing of this order.
9 In the result the complaint of Complainant is partly allowed and direct the first opposite party to reimburse the charges of Rs.4,979/- being incurred by complainant to go to Hyderabad from Calcutta and also direct to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards rendering deficient services, mental agony and bodly pressures and acting negligently together with costs
of Rs.2,000/- towards prosecuting the present complaint. The complaint against second opposite party is dismissed but in the circumstances, no costs. Time for compliance of above order is four weeks.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 31st day of March, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Copy to:
1) The Complainant
2) The Opp.parties
3) Spare copy copy delivered to the Complainant/
Opp.Parties On _____________
