BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-

1. Direct the OPs to reimburse Rs.2,76,852/- that the complainant has spent towards buying two flight tickets.
2. Direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the sufferings, mental and emotional agony.
3. Pass such other direction that this Hon’ble Commission deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant who is represented by his father the SPA holder has booked his flight tickets to Canada for the flight operated by OP1 on the platform of OP2.  The complainant was aspiring to pursue his degree at Algoma University, in Brampton, GTA, Canada.  The complainant through perseverance and hard work finally got admission to Algoma university in Canada. After having secured a place in one of the universities in Canada, he was in process of preparing himself to leave for Canada to pursue his higher studies.  

3. The complainant having to fly to Canada for his higher studies went on to book his flight tickets for the flight operated by OP1 using the platform services offered by OP2.  The complainant had booked the flight operated by OP1 and paid an amount of Rs.1,06,484/- for his travel to Toronto Pearson International Airport, Mississauga, ON, Canada.  The flight was booked using the platform and services of OP2. The flight was scheduled to take off on 8^th August 2023 at 3.05 AM from Bangalore International Airport and land in Frankfurt Germany on 8^th August 2023.  Further there was a scheduled layover time of 04 hours and 15 min in Frankfurt Germany.  After the layover of 4 hours and 15 min the complainant was supposed to travel from Frankfurt to Munich, Germany. There was a further layover time of 1 hour 40 min in Munich, after which the complainant was supposed to board the flight from Munich, Germany to Toronto, Canada. The total layover time was 5 hours and 55 min.
4. The complainant has booked the tickets to travel on 08.08.2023 and ticket was booked on 23.06.2023, there was over a month’s time for the complainant to board the scheduled flight.  During that time between the booking and scheduled air travel, the complainant was in touch with the customer support team of OP1 requesting information about the necessary documents that the complainant had to carry with him during his travel with OP1 airlines, but throughout none of the customer support executives of the OPs neither explained nor gave the complainant complete information with respect to the visa requirements. However to the utter shock of the complainant, the customer support executives informed the complainant that they were unaware of the visa requirements and procedure to obtain the same. They have to make enquires on the German Embassy website to know the visa requirements.
5. The complainant having received no information from the customer support executives of OPs, being a layman has made necessary checks on the German Embassy website with respect to transit visa requirements to fly through Germany.  The document that was available o the German Embassy website stated that an Indian citizen who is passing through the International transit area of airports in Germany needs to possess an airport transit visa. However the document further states that a national from India does not require an airport transit visa if he/she holds a valid visa to enter Canada or the USA.
6. It is further contention taken by the complainant that when the OPs have not made any efforts to help or guide the complainant with the queries the complainant has raised regarding the visa requirements.  He only exercised his due diligences to the best of his knowledge and ability to go through the information available online and accordingly was of the opinion that there was no requirement for an airport transit visa.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that on the date of travel he tried completing his online checking process through OP1 website.  However to his utter shock even after several attempts, he was not able to complete his web check in process.  Therefore he again reached out to the customer support of OP1 through mobile application of OP1 airlines.  The customer support executive has informed the complainant that was able to do the web check in process from his end.  However he stated that he was not permitted to do so due to security issues.
8. The complainant taking advise of the consumer support executive reached the airport at the counter of the OP1 and produced all necessary document to issue his boarding pass. The staff of the OP1 refused to do so and informed the complainant that he was required to obtain a German visa to travel to Canada via Frankfurt and Munich. Therefore he was denied the boarding pass and the complainant was not allowed to go to the scheduled flight.
9. It is the specific grievance of the complainant that he was a student intending to travel to Canada for his higher studies.  The staff of the OP1 did not offer any support or assistance to the complainant when he has approached the OP1 staff for assistance and guidance.  This complainant was left in the dark about the mandatory requirements to travel to Canada via Germany.  The OP1 airlines company failed to provide the most basic information that the complainant sought.   After having been wrongly denied entry to the flight the complainant had to return home without being able to reach Canada to pursue his post graduation course.  The complainant without any mistake on his part had to spend Rs.1,70,368/- to book another ticket to fly with OP1 airlines.  However miraculously the complainant was not required to possess a transit visa to fly with the OP1 airlines to the same destination and even this time the transit was in Frankfurt, Germany.  
10. The OP1 or OP2 have not given any information to the complainant or displayed on the booking website about the requirement of valid German visa despite having made repeated requests and calls to the customer support of the OPs to help this complainant for obtaining necessary transit visa.  The complainant suffered great amount of mental and emotional agony etc., and huge financial loss.  The complainant hails from a middle class family who invested all his family life savings to go abroad and study. He has also availed educational loans to further finance his education in Canada. The act done by the OPs had almost brought an end to his dream and aspiration without any reasonable cost. The acts of these OPs are nothing but deficiency in service. He has also sent a detailed email dated 12.08.2023 to the OPs seeking compensation for the loss suffered by him, but there was no response from the OPs.  After that the complainant also got issued legal notice on 07.09.2023 same has been duly served to the OPs. They have neither issued any reply nor come forward to compensate this complainant. Hence this complaint is filed.
11. In response to the notice, OPs appeared and filed version.
12. It is the case of the OP1 that the complaint lacks merit and has been filed solely with a view of pressurizing this OP1 to agree to the mischievous demands of the complainant.  The complainant booked the ticket on the portal of OP2 as well as the extract on visa guidelines from the Germany embassy, produced by the complainant himself clearly shows that there was a requirement for a visitor visa into the Schengen Area to board the concerned flight.  This was because one part of the itinerary was from Frankfort to Munich within the country of Germany which is a domestic flight within the Schengen area. The complainant was not a passenger in transit at the airport but was a domestic passenger for all intends between Frankfurt to Munich.  The complainant has failed to produce his visitors Schengen area visa and was denied boarding on account of the same.
13. It is further case of the OP1 that the complainant’s travel itinerary involved:

1. Flight from Bengaluru to Frankfurt (LH 755) on August 08, 2023,
2. Domestic flight from Frankfurt to Munich (LH 106) on August 08, 2023
3. Flight from Munich to Toronto (LH 494) on August 08, 2023

14. The complainant was required to clear immigration at Frankfurt airport before proceedings to Munich as per Schengen area rules necessitating a valid Schengen visa. The complainant did not posses valid Schengen visa.  Article 13.2 of the general conditions of carriage (Passenger and baggage) as available on OP1 website clearly states that it is the responsibility of the passenger to carry valid travel documents.  Under article 14.1.6 of the general conditions of carriage LAG is not liable for any loss caused to the passenger that arise in fulfillment of government obligations.  
15. It is further contention taken by the OP1 that it was the complainant’s responsibility to find out the details of documents that were required for his travel and carry them for travel.  Any alleged discomfort/inconvenience caused to the complainant is solely attributable to the complainant’s own negligence and his failure to carry valid travel documents. For which this OP1 cannot be held liable or responsible in any manner.  This OP1 is not required to pay any compensation as per article 14.1.7 of the general conditions of carriage for any consequential or remote damage unless the same has been caused by wilfull default or gross negligence on the part of this OP1. In this case it is the negligence of the complainant in not carrying a valid Schengen visa and there cannot be said to be any negligence on the part of this OP. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
16. On the other hand it is the case of the OP2 that it is a private limited company.  The complainant booked flight ticket through this OP on 23.06.2023 and this OP2 has confirmed the flight ticket.  This OP2 is merely a facilitator assist the complainant for providing confirmed ticket voucher subject to availability.  The complainant never approached for visa assistant or paid any consideration against such assistance.  This OP2 assumed no responsibility for transit visa as mentioned in the ticket issue.  This OP role was limited to confirming the travel ticket and not issuance of visa to the complainant.
17. It is further case of the OP that the complainant was fully aware that he has to obtain transit visa. It was specifically mentioned that the complainant ought to have checked travel rules prior to the date of travelling.  This OP is neither deficient nor service nor adopted any unfair trade practice in any manner muchless as alleged.
18. The complaint filed by the complainant itself is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The complainant filed this complaint with a malafide attempt on his part for unjust enrichment. When the complainant miserably failed to obtain transit visa for travelling to Toronto from Bangalore via Frankfurt Munich despite the confirmed ticket issued by this OP2 to the complainant clearly mentioned the visa requirement. The complainant failed to obtain the transit visa and also the Schengen visa to enter the domestic airport of Munich from Frankfurt. Hence OP2 is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
19. The SPA holder of the complainant has failed to lead evidence, inspite of given sufficient time and hence the affidavit evidence of the complainant is taken as nil by this complainant. The op2 has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on 05 documents and the OP1 have lead evidence and relied on 04 documents.  
20. Heard the arguments of advocate for OP1 and 2 only.  The complainant has neither adduced any evidence nor submitted any arguments. Both the OPs have filed their written arguments.
21. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

22. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the Negative

Point No.2: In the Negative

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

23. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, affidavit evidence written arguments of the OPs.

24. The complainant being a student has booked the flight ticket to Canada for the flight operated by OP1 through the platform of OP2.  The complainant was aspiring to pursue his degree at Algoma University in Canada and he got admission at Algoma University. After secured the place in one of the universities in Canada he was in the process of preparing himself to leave for Canada.

25. He has booked the flight ticket operated by OP1 at a price of Rs.1,06,484/- for his travel to Toronto Pearson International Airport, Canada.  The flight was scheduled to take off on 08.08.2023 from Bangalore International Airport and land in Frankfurt Germany on 08.08.2023. Further there was a scheduled lay over time of 4 hours 15 min in Frankfurt Germany. After that the complainant was supposed to travel from Frankfurt to Munich, Germany and she has to wait for 1 hour 40 min Munich. After that the complainant was supposed to board the flight from Munich Germany to Toronto Canada.  

26. The complainant has gone to the airport on 08.08.2023 to board the scheduled flight. The complainant was in touch with the customer support team of OP1 requesting information about necessary documents.  This complainant is a layman having no idea about the transit visa requirements to fly through Germany. But both the OPs have not made any effort to help him in obtaining proper visa.  The OP1 have not permitted the complainant to board the flight and they refused to issue the boarding pass on the ground that this complainant was required to obtain a German visa to travel to Canada via Frankfurt and Munich Germany. Therefore he was denied the boarding pass and was not allowed to board the scheduled flight. In view of this the complainant has to spent another Rs.1,70,368/- to book another flight ticket with OP1 airlines without his fault or mistake and he has to fly without having any transit visa with the OP1 airlines to the same destination.  

27. Under these circumstances, this complainant has suffered great mental agony and financial loss. The acts of these OPs are nothing but a deficiency in service. Inspite of issue of letter and legal notice the OPs have not responded and they have not paid any compensation for the loss suffered by him.  The complainant has not at all adduced any oral evidence and hence this commission has taken the complainant’s evidence as nil.

28. On the other hand the contention taken by the OP1 is that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Their airline authority has refused to board the concerned flight to the complainant, as the complainant was not having the valid travel documents.  This complainant was not a passenger in transit at the airport but was a domestic passenger for all intends and purposes between Frankfurt to Munich.  When the complainant failed to produce his visitors Schengen area visa and hence he was denied the boarding by their authorities.  The complainant was denied boarding due to his fault and not on the negligence or deficiency of service on the part of this OP.

29. In support of their contention the OP1 authorized representative filed affidavit evidence and relied on 04 documents as Ex.R6 to R9.  Ex.R6 is the copy of the authorization letter, Ex.R7 is the FAQ, Ex.R8 is the copy of the general conditions of the carriage.

30. On the other hand, the representative of OP2 also filed evidence affidavit and relied on 05 documents, Ex.R1 is the authorization letter, Ex.R2 is the copy of the board resolution, Ex.R3 is the agreement between complainant and OP2, Ex.R4 is the copy of the ticket confirmation voucher.

31. Both the authorized representatives of the OPs have reiterated all the allegations made in the version.  in addition to this they have also relied on Document No.1 to 9.

32. It is clear from the evidence and documents and the allegations made in the complaint that the complainant has booked the flight ticket of OP1 airlines through the platform of OP2 after paying an amount of Rs.1,06,484/- for his travel to Toronto Pearson International Airport Canada. The flight was scheduled to take off on 08.08.2023 from Bangalore International Airport and landing Frankfurt Germany on 08.08.2023 from Frankfurt the complainant has to travel to Munich to go to Toronto, Canada.  

33. The main grievance of the complainant is that the OP1 and 2 have not given any information about the visa and in view of this he was unable to obtain the Schengen visa as required to enter the domestic airport of Munich from Frankfurt.  The OP1 have refused to board the flight to the complainant on the ground that he was not having valid visitor’s visa to enter Schengen area to board the Schengen flight.  

34. It is mandatory to the passengers like complainant has to clear the immigration at Frankfurt airport before proceedings to Munich as per Schengen area rules which requires a valid Schengen visa.  The complainant did not possess the valid Schengen visa. It is the responsibility of the passenger to carry valid travel documents and the OP1 is not at all liable for any loss caused to the passenger on their own negligence and their failure to carry valid travel documents.  

35. The liability of the OP2 is also very limited. They are only responsible for the booking of the tickets. They have booked the ticket and confirmed the ticket for the complainant to travel to Toronto. At the time of boarding and after scrutiny of the documents the OP1 authority have refused to issue boarding pass to the complainant on the ground that he was not holding valid Schengen visa to enter the German domestic airport at Munich.  

36. It is the duty of the complainant to know the rules and regulations while travelling from India to Toronto.  It is mandatory on the part of the complainant to have the Schengen visa when he was entering the Schengen area i.e., Germany. When the complainant was not holding the valid visa, the OP1 have rightly refused to issue boarding pass and to enter the flight.  If the OP1 have not refused the boarding pass to the complainant the complainant would have faced the dangerous situation at Frankfurt, since he was not holding the required schengen visa to enter Munich domestic airport.  Under these circumstances the incident happens due to the negligence and lack of international rules and regulations relating to the visa on the part of the complainant. Under these circumstances, the complainant is not entitle for any compensation from the OPs and they are not responsible to pay any compensation to the complainant.  Hence we answer point No.1 and point No.2 in the Negative.

37. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is Dismissed. No costs.
2. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 21^ST day of NOVEMBER 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

NIL

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party 2 – R.W.1;

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party 1 – R.W.2;