DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.480/2012
- Mr. Abdul Hadi
3344, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi-110002
2. Mr. Arif Shakeel
R-66, Jogabai Extn
Jami Nagar
New Delhi-110025
….Complainant
Versus
- M/s Saudia Arabian Airlines
202-203, Second Floor,
ANS,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New lhi-110001
2. M/s V.S International,
13D, JG, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 17.09.2012
Date of Order : 09.01.2023
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Facts of the case as pleaded by the complainant are that Abdul Hadi and Arif Shakeel booked two tickets on 28.09.2011 from Saudia Arabian Airlines ( OP) for travel from Delhi to Jeddah on Friday, 28.10.2011 through M/s V.S International, New Delhi.
2. It is stated that for the purpose of cross checking the validity of the tickets booked through M/s V.S International, complainants visited the building of OP on 24.10.2011. Complainants handed over the tickets as well as passports to the person deployed at the counter attending the visitors. He checked the visa and told that the seats were confirmed. It is next stated that when they reached the airport on 28.10.2011 and presented the tickets ,the Airline’s staff declined to issue the boarding passes to the complainants. The airline’s staff told the complainants that their tickets were not valid for Haj and therefore, they were not entitled to travel to Saudi for the purpose of performing Haj. Complainants tried convincing the Airlines staff but to no avail. Embarrassed and harassed at being denied the boarding pass amongst their relatives who had come to the airport to send them off, it is stated that complainants were put in a very awkward position and suffered mental torture due to the act of OP.
3. It is further stated that the complainants purchased new tickets for travelling on 31.10.2011 from Delhi to Jeddah for which the complainants were charged full air fare and the amount already paid for the tickets on 28.09.2011 was not adjusted against the cost of the tickets booked for the second time.
4. Aggrieved at the loss of money as well as dignity ,complainants approached this Commission with prayers to direct OP to pay compensation Rs.10,00,000/- to each of the complainant for loss and harassment cost to the complainants.
5. OP resisted the complaint and filed their written version raising preliminary objection qua territorial jurisdiction and stating further that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper parties. It is stated that complainants got the tickets issued from the agent of the OP i.e M/s V.S International, New Delhi. The complainants have omitted to make the agent as necessary a party to the complaint.
6. It is next stated by the OP that tickets were issued by the agent as per the directions of the complainants, on the basis of Employment Visa. The said tickets were issued under V Class, which are much cheaper as compared to the other tickets and same are not refundable as per the rules of the Airlines. It is stated that the complainants were aware of the same. The said tickets were duly confirmed under the Employment Visa and the plane in which the said tickets were booked ,took off with the seats vacant against the said tickets. It is stated that complainants got the tickets issued on the basis of Employment Visa however on the day of boarding i.e 28.10.2011 they were denied the boarding pass for not having the proper visa.
7. It is next stated by OP that the complainants were holding the tickets for Dammam for which the Haj Visa is otherwise also not valid as per the rules of the Ministry of Haj, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is further stated that since the tickets of V Class which is/are non-refundable therefore the amounts for the said tickets were not adjusted against the fresh tickets or refunded to them.
8. Evidence and written arguments are filed on behalf of the parties. Complainant had filed the evidence without affidavit therefore at later stage complainant was allowed to file evidence by way of affidavit. Complainants filed two applications under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC read with Section 151 of CPC for adding the agent of OP-1 i.e M/s V.S International, New Delhi as party to the complaint. The second application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the complaint. As OP had no objection to both, the applications were allowed and the complainants accordingly amended the complaint.
9. Arguments on behalf of parties are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
10. As per the documents available there is no denying the fact that Mr. Abdul Hadi and Mr. Arif Shakeel were denied entry due to problem in their documents on 28.10.2011 as per the Annexure-2 & Annexure-3 of the complaint. The said tickets are issued by the agent of OP-2 i.e M/s V.S International, New Delhi. Complainant have also annexed the electronic tickets purchased on 29.10.2011 for departure from Delhi to Jeddah King ABD on 31.10.2011 for Haj. Same are annexed as Annexure-4 and Annexure-5 of the complaint.
11. The only issue before us is whether the OP was wrong or deficient in denying the services to the complainants by not issuing the boarding pass to the complainants on 28.10.2011. It is seen from the documents placed before us that Complainant No.1, Abdul Hadi has chosen not place the Visa document before us to check whether he had the Employment Visa or Haj Visa. However ,copy of Mr. Arif Shakeel’s Visa ie complainant no.2 has been annexed as Annexure-3 with the evidence of complainant which shows that he was holding a Haj Visa on 07.10.2011. In the absence of Abdul Hadi’s Visa before us it is assumed that he was denied boarding pass for want of proper visa.
12. Complainants have not put on record anything to counter the averment of OP that as per the policy of Saudi Government, Haj passenger can board only at Jeddah /Madinah/Makkah and from any other point passenger cannot travel on Haj Visa. It is also not countered that complainants were holding tickets for Dammam for which the Haj visa otherwise is also not valid as per the rules of Ministry of Haj, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is also seen from Annexure-4 and Annexure-5 of the complaint that the second time when the complainants booked a ticket for Haj, the flight was from Delhi to Jeddah. Therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the version of OP.
13. As regards complainants contention that the money for the flight was not adjusted on the second flight seems unreasonable as it is seen from the Annexures that the tickets were of V Class and as per OP’s rules the same were not refundable, therefore the amount for the said tickets were not adjusted against the cost of tickets booked for the second time.
14. In view of the discussion above this commission does not find OP-1 and OP-2 deficient of any service as it seems that the tickets were booked by OP-2 as per the directions of the complainants. Complaint is accordingly dismissed.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
