Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/314/2019

Mr. G. Alagesan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Gulf Airr Rep by its Reservation-in-charge - Opp.Party(s)

M/s A.R.Nixon

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

                                               Date of Complaint Filed :09.12.2019

                                                Date of Reservation      :15.02.2023

                                               Date of Order               :27.02.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:  TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                              : PRESIDENT

                     THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,             :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,       : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.314 /2019

MONDAY, THE 27^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

Mr. G. Alagesan, M/A 59 years,

S/o Govindasamy,

No. 1084, 7^th Main Road,

Thiruvalluvar Nagar,

Tiruvanmiyur,

Chennai 600 041.                                                                                                                   ... Complainant                

..Vs..

 

1.M/s Gulf Air,

   Rep. by its Reservation-in-charge,

   Mrs. Deepa,

   No.5, Old No.2, Ground Floor,

   Vijayaragava Road,

   T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

   E.Mail:-ecc@gulfairco.loc

 

2.The Deputy Manager,

   Gulf Airways Operation,

   Chennai International Air Port

 

3.Lakshmi Narayanan,

   Deputy Manager,

   Gulf Airways Operation,

   Chennai International Air Port.

 

4.Chennai International Air Port Emigration Office,

   Meenambakkam,

   Chennai 600 027.

 

5.Senior Airport Manager,

   International Chennai Airport Authority (International),

   Meenambakkam,

   Chennai 600 027.                                                                                                                           ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant                    : M/s. A.R. Nixon

Counsel for the 1^st to 4^th Opposite Parties   : Exparte

Counsel for the 5^th Opposite Party             : M/s. V.Lokesh Kumar     

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the 5^thOpposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I,Thiru.T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,        

1.    The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.11,300/- spent for the Air Tickets towards ticket charge booked for Abudhabi and to pay a sum of Rs.1,200/- towards difference of Air Ticket for the travel dated 18.10.2018 and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the loss of income on failure to attend business meeting and to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony, physical strain, humiliation, wrongful confinement.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

 The Complainant is an NRE and staying in Abu Dhabi for the past 13 years for his avocation. The Complainant is a 3^rdparty inspection engineering consultant to Abu Dhabi Government Oil and Gas company and also for other International Companies. The nature of service rendered by the Complainant is a special service and his time is very precious, since the nature of service involves needy and emergent service to the companies which involves huge pecuniary benefits for the parties concerned. He booked his Air Ticket to fly from Chennai International Airport to Dubai through an Air ticket travel agent M/s Kannaya Travel World, Chennai 600 026 on 12.10.2018, through Opposite parties Gulf Airways in Flight No.GF 053 for a travel dated 14-10-2018 to be departed from the Airport at 21.35 p.m. Towards the flight charge the Complainant has paid Rs.11,300/- plus other cost. While reserving the Ticket through the agent the Complainant submitted his Visa, Copy of Passport and all other identity as mandate by the Law time being in force after satisfying the entire records the Ticket has been issued by the Opposite parties and the same is a confirmed Ticket. Nobody have the right to retain or detain the Complainant from Travel other than the Court of Law of India.The Gulf Airways reservation Office at Chennai has confirmed the Air Ticket and issued a Ticket bearing No.0722854020845. He reached the International Airport Chennai 3 hours prior to the Checking time. The Check in Counter Officials verified the passport and Air ticket thereafter the 2^ndOpposite Party has verified the validity of the Passport and informed the Complainant stating that the seal affixed by the Embassy of India Abdu Dhabi, UAE is written in hand while fixing up the seal of Indian Government. The seal affixed by the Government of India in Abu Dhabi is neither distracted nor over written. The competent authority who is authorized to make an endorsement in the passport alone has signed and filled up the seal of the Republic of India. Nobody has the right to impeach the power of stamping authority including the 1^stand 2^nd Opposite parties. The passport is an authencity given to the Complainant by the Republic of India as a document to travel around the world permissible by the law. Nobody has the right to deny the constitutional right conferred upon the Complainant's right totravel by using the Passport to Abroad. Unfortunately the Opposite parties 1 and 2 have interfered with the Complainant's constitutional protection conferred under the Constitution of India and thereby infringed the Constitutional right provided to my client. But with an ulterior motive the Opposite parties have refused to issue boarding pass to the Complainant to board on flight which is against the constitutional mandate. He requested the Opposite parties and pleaded the 2^ndOpposite Party and informed the agenda of him to represent and do his 3^rdparty inspection for a company in Abroad at Abu Dhabi but the 2^nd Opposite Party have shown his deaf ears and closed his eyes without giving any respect to the citizen of India. Since the right of boarding was denied by the 2nd Opposite Party unilaterally, the Complainant had left with no other option except to kneel down before all the authorities enabling to travel. Since the 2^ndOpposite Party have adamantly refused to allow the Complainant to travel all the authorities at the Airport have expressed their inability to allow the Complainant to board. Because of the Opposite partiesunilateral act Complainant was put to untold sufferings and literally shed his tears. He was put in to dark and felt between the deep sea and Devil. Since the Complainant was unable to fly and reach Abu Dhabi he could not participate in the 3^rdParty inspection business meet and thereby the Complainant lost his business andincurred a heavy loss to an extent of Rs. 17,55,000/- and their entire business has ruined and sustained a loss of above said amount at Indian Rate. Since the Complainant was not in a position to approach the customers on 15.10.2018 the entire business for 90 days was cancelled. Thus the Opposite parties are responsible to compensate the said amount apart from damages for mental agony, physical strain, loss of reputation and stress. during the unlawful detention. The Complainant estimates the value of damages and loss to a tune of Rs.25 lakhs for the denial at the Opposite parties instance. He was forced to reserve another Air Ticket on 18.10.2018 by paying Rs.12,500/- and through Emirates Air ways which belongs to Government of Dubai. The Complainant submits that he used the very same Passport and Visa for reaching Dubai. From this it is very clear that the denial at the Opposite parties hand is unilateral, unconstitutional, ultravires beyond their power and breach of contract. The Opposite parties have not only interfered with the Plaintiff's constitutional right but also made the Complainant to sustain heavy loss. It is the duty of the Opposite parties and responsibilities to compensate the Complainant who is the bonafide passenger with valid ticket on proper consideration. The Opposite parties act is not only breach of contract but alsoviolates the constitutional right as well as affects the human right of Plaintiff. The Complainant was humiliated at the hands of the Opposite parties on no fault of him. The Opposite parties, being Foreign Company occupying Indian Air Port the Opposite parties have no right to interfere with the Constitutional right of the Complainant and other laws of India. The Opposite parties occupation in India itself is endanger to the Indian Citizen. The Opposite parties act has to be monitor seriously. The Complainant requested the Opposite parties 1 and 2 at- least to refund the amount paid towards the Flight Ticket. But the Opposite parties have not refunded the same with a malafide intention, while discussing with the Opposite parties about the refund the Opposite parties have openly said if the amount is refunded the Opposite parties liability will be fixed and the Complainant may sue both the Opposite parties. Having no other option the Complainant demanded the Opposite parties through the legal notice dated 22.02.2019 to compensate Complainant. The Opposite parties 3 and 4 are added as parties in the 1st and 2nd Opposite parties personal capacity. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 5^th Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

It is respectfully submitted that the 5^thOpposite party is not at all a necessary party to these proceedings. The Complainant has no grievance whatsoever as against the Fifth Opposite Party nor is the Fifth Opposite Party guilty of any negligence or deficiency in service. The 5^thOpposite Party is responsible only for the administration and management of the airport operated by the Airports Authority of India and not for the operation of the flights. The operation of the flights, including the arrival and departure, are the exclusive preserve of the concerned Airlines who merely use the facilities offered by the 5^thOpposite Party. The 5^thOpposite Party is a statutory body constituted by the Government of India for the management and administration of the Airport under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. The 5^thOpposite Party submits that the plain reading of the complain shows some disputes between the complainant and 1 to 3 opposite party and the Fifth Opposite Party has unnecessarily been dragged into the proceedings and made as a party to the complaint. The complaint contains allegations only against the 1 to 3 Opposite Parties, however, the complainant has sought relief and compensation against all the opposite parties in general as seen in the prayer column. No allegations or averments were made against the Fifth Opposite Party. Hence in the absence of any allegation or even the averment in the complaint, the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief as against the Fifth Opposite Party. As such the above complaint is liable to be dismissed against the 5th Opposite Party. The 5^th Opposite Party submits that in para 9 of the complaint, the complainant has averred the reason for the inclusion of Opposite parties 3 and 4 but no reason has been mentioned for including the Fifth opposite party as party to the proceedings. Hence the above complainant is also liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties. It is respectfully submitted that as the 5^thOpposite Party is neither responsible for the inconvenience and hardship allegedly caused to the Complainant nor is the Complainant in the position of a consumer vis-a-vis the 5^thOpposite Party, the Complainant cannot have any claim as against the Fifth Opposite Party. The 5^thOpposite Party is also not in a position to provide any information apart from what has been already stated hereinbefore. Hence, respectfully submitted that the complaint is not at all maintainable as against the 5^thOpposite Party.Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

4. The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-15. Inspite of sufficient notice to the Opposite parties 1 to 4, the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 remains absent and hence set exparte on 23.01.2020. The 5^th Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of 5^th Opposite Party no documents was marked.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

The Contentions of the Complainant were that he had booked his Air Ticket to fly from Chennai International Airport to Dubai through an Air ticket travel agent M/s.Kannaya Travel World, Chennai on 12.10.2018, through Opposite parties Gulf Airways in Flight No.GF 053 for a travel dated 14-10-2018 to be departed from the Airport at 21.35 p.m. and had paid Rs.11,300/- plus other cost. He is an NRE and staying in Abu Dhabi for the past 13 years for his avocation. He is a 3^rdparty inspection engineering consultant to Abu Dhabi Government Oil and Gas company and also for other International Companies. The nature of service rendered by him is a special service and his time is very precious, since the nature of service involves needy and emergent service to the companies which involves huge pecuniary benefits for the parties concerned. Further contended that after satisfying the entire records submitted by him, like Visa, Copy of Passport and all other identity as mandate by the Law time being in force, the Ticket has been issued by the Opposite parties and the same was a confirmed Ticket. The Gulf Airways reservation Office at Chennai has confirmed the Air Ticket and issued a Ticket bearing No.0722854020845. He reached the International Airport Chennai 3 hours prior to the Checking time. The Check in Counter Officials verified the passport and Air ticket thereafter the 2^ndOpposite Party has verified the validity of the Passport and informed the Complainant stating that the seal affixed by the Embassy of India Abdu Dhabi, UAE is written in hand while fixing up the seal of Indian Government. The seal affixed by the Government of India in Abu Dhabi is neither distracted nor over written. The competent authority who is authorized to make an endorsement in the passport alone has signed and filled up the seal of the Republic of India. Nobody has the right to impeach the power of stamping authority including the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties. The passport is an authencity given to the Complainant by the Republic of India as a document to travel around the world permissible by the law. In spite of his pleading about the necessity and importance of his travel, questioning the passport issued to him he was prevented and his right of boarding the flight was denied board the flight, which clearly amounts to deficiency of service, because of which he was not able to attend the meeting that was held on 15.10.2018 at Abu Dhabi and sustained huge monetary loss. Further he was forced to reserve another ticket on 18.10.2018 by paying Rs.12,500/- and travelled to Dubai with the same passport and VISA. Further contended that the 5^th Opposite Party as per Notification dated 26.10.2018 is liable and responsible for the incident that has taken place to him and no action has been taken by the 5^th Opposite Party, as under 2(b) (ii) of the said Notification defines “ground handling” means services necessary for an aircraft’s arrival at, and departure from, an airport other than air traffic control and it includes- (ii) traffic handling including activites as specified in Schedule – II. And in Schedule -II which deals Traffic Handling and under Terminal service – (5) Traffic services at the airport terminals including passenger Check-in.

The 5^th Opposite Party had contended that they are a statutory body constituted by the Government of India for the management and administration of the Airport under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and responsible only for the administration and management of the airport operated by the Airports Authority of India and not for the operation of the flights. The operation of the flights including the arrival and departure, were exclusively dealt by concerned Airlines who merely use their facilities offered. Further contended that there were some disputes between the complainant and 1 to 3 opposite party and they have been unnecessarily dragged into the proceedings and made as a party to the complaint, as allegations made were also only against the 1 to 3 Opposite Parties, but, the complainant has sought relief and compensation in general including them without making any allegations or averments against them. In such absence, the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief as against them. Though in the complaint, the complainant had averred the reason for the inclusion of Opposite parties 3 and 4 but no reason has been mentioned for including them as party to the proceedings. Further contended that the Complainant had not approached them when the incident took place and sought for any help. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

On discussions made above and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Complainant though had confirmed ticket on 14.10.2018 in 1^st to 3^rd Opposite Parties Flight No.GF 053 with scheduled departure time at 21.35 hours from Chennai Airport, the Complainant was denied boarding of the said flight and the reason alleged was that the authenticity of his passport was questioned and informed that the seal affixed by the Embassy of India Abdu Dhabi, UAE is written in hand while fixing up the seal of Indian Government. Though it was explained that the seal affixed by the Government of India in Abu Dhabi is neither distracted nor over written and it has been signed by the competent authority who is authorized to make an endorsement and filled up the seal of the Republic of India. It is to be noted that the Complainant had not produced any authenticated materials to show that reason for the denial of his boarding the flight on 14.10.2018 by the 1^st to 3^rd Opposite Parties except the Mail Communications exchanged between his Travel Agent and the 1^st Opposite Party from 28.10.2018 to 31.12.2108, marked as Ex.A-10 to Ex.A-12 and on perusal of the said exhibits it is found that the Travel Agent of the Complainant had sought for approval for Nil cancellation charges and in Ex.A-12 the reply sent by the 1^st Opposite Party to the Travel Agent of the Complainant, which was forwarded to the Complainant, wherein it was mentioned that “we are certain that you will appreciate that this situation was beyond our control. In accordance with general airline policy, it is the customer’s responsibility to confirm the passport requirements of the country to which he/she is travelling to and Gulf Air cannot be held liable for the unfortunate consequences of the customer’s failure to do so. Customers are requested to obtain the required information form the relevant embassy of the country to be visited. Unfortunately, an airline has little or no control over any Government Authorities’ decision.” Hence from the said reply mail it could be confirmed that only on passport issue of the Complainant, the Complainant was denied to board the flight of the 1^st Opposite Party on 14.10.2018 and it would also be clear from Ex.A-1, Passport of the Complainant, as contended there was no distraction or over written was found except the signature of the competent Authority, in which issue either the 4^th Opposite Party or the 5^th Opposite Party are not involved and even the reliance of notification dated 26.10.2018 made by the Complainant enlightening the liability and responsibility of the 5^th Opposite Party on the aspect of Ground Handling at Airport, could not considered as the notification was found to be issued subsequent to the incident that took place to the Complainant, which is on 14.10.2018. Further the Judgement relied upon by the Complainants reported in 2014 STPL 3131 NC (I (2014) CPJ 226 (NC)) and 2011 STPL 16606 NC (II (2011) CPJ 137 (NC)) distinguishes and varies with the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the same could not be considered. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that the act of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 by preventing the Complainant from boarding their flight scheduled for departure at 9.35pm on 14.10.2018, in spite of having issued confirmed ticket to the Complainant, clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3. As the complaint had not averred and alleged against Opposite Parties 4 and 5, who had nothing to do for the act of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3, the complaint against Opposite Parties 4 and 5 is dismissed. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.    

Point Nos.2 and 3:

As discussed and decided in Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties 1 to 3, the Opposite Parties1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,300/- spent towards Air ticket charges to Abudhabi, pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  towards deficiency of service, monetary loss and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered. 

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,300/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand and Three Hundred Only) spent towards Air ticket charges to Abudhabi, pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards deficiency of service, monetary loss and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks  from the date of receipt of the order. The Complaint against Opposite Parties 4 and 5 stands dismissed.

          In the result this complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 27^thof February 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1		Copy of passport of the Complainant
Ex.A2	01.01.2018	Letter from the M/s Global Vision Management consultancy Abu Dhabi service agreement
Ex.A3	14.09.2018	Section 2 scope of the Agreement Conferring the agreement
Ex.A4	14.09.2018	Section 3 scope of the Agreement Conferring the agreement
Ex.A5	14.09.2018	Section 4 scope of the Agreement Conferring the agreement
Ex.A6	14.09.2018	Section 5 scope of the Agreement Conferring the agreement
Ex.A7	09.10.2018	Invitation letter sent by A1 Tamil Electro Mechnical Equipment Trading Abu Dhabi
Ex.A8	12.10.2018	Copy of ITINERARY issued by Kanniah Travel World
Ex.A9	15.10.2018	Copy of ITINERAY issued by Kanniah Travel world
Ex.A10	13.11.2018	G Mail message sent by Kanniah Travel World
Ex.A11	13.11.2018	G Mail message sent by Kanniah Travel World
Ex.A12	31.12.2018	G mail message sent by Kanniah Travel World to the Complainant
Ex.A13	-	Invoice sent by the Kanniah Travel World to the Complainant
Ex.A14	22.09.2019	Legal notice sent by the Complainant’s Counsel with ack. Cards
Ex.A15	-	Returned cover of 4th Opposite Party

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

NIL

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT