PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Petitioner has not turned up. Last time, vide letter dated nil it was submitted that he was unable to attend this Commission. He had requested that his pleadings and the ground of his Revision Petition be treated as his submissions and his absence should be excused. 2. Consequently, we will decide the case in his absence. Both the counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are present. Arguments heard. The record perused. 3. Sh. Suman Bonakurthi, the complainant purchased two-way air tickets by incurring a sum of Rs. 28,031/- to travel to Vietnam on 23.10.2009, from Hyderabad to Kolkata and Kolkata to Bangkok and from Bangkok to Vietnam. He purchased the tickets to and fro. The complainant arrived at Kolkata on 23.10.2009. His grievance is that he was detained at the Airport for 3 hours and was not permitted to travel to Bangkok. He wanted to go back to Hyderabad/Chennai but his request fell on the deaf ears. Consequently, he was forced to travel to Hyderabad in Indigo Airlines on the same day. 3. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 31.03.2011, partly allowed the complaint and the Kingfisher Airlines –OP-1 was directed to reimburse the charges of Rs. 4,979/- spent by the complainant to go to Hyderabad from Calcutta and also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- towards rendering deficient services, mental agony and bodily pressures and acting negligently together with costs of Rs. 2,000/- . The complaint against OP-2 was dismissed. First Appeal was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the complaint itself. 4. In the absence of the petitioner, we have perused the record. This is apparent that the complainant had booked tickets to Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam through Bangkok for his travel by Thai Airways. The Kingfisher Airlines Limited-OP-1 asked the complainant to submit his VISA for him to travel to Bangkok. He failed to submit the document. The Immigration authority at Kolkata raised objection regarding his travel to Bangkok without valid documents. The appellant has submitted a copy of letter issued by the Immigration Department, Vietnam, which, according to the Kingfisher Airlines Limited and Immigration Department was not a valid VISA. It also transpired that the complainant could get the VISA on arrival at Vietnam. There is no evidence produced before us that the petitioner would get the VISA after arrival or was it incumbent upon the Vietnam authorities to issue the VISA instantaneously. Without VISA the immigration department was well within its right to refuse to permit the complainant to travel. The grouse, if any, lies with the immigration department. The necessary documents, the response of immigration department did not see the light of the day. We cannot make bricks in absence of straw. 5. There appears no fault on the part of the respondents/Ops. The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. | 
