Order No. 43 dt. 03/02/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a reputed businessman having relationship with companies in different countries. The complainant was about to fly to Guayaquil in Ecuador for inspection of teakwood for the company M/s SNB Exports S.A. The complainant purchased two tickets from the travel agent for journey from Kualalumpur Airport in Malaysia to Guayaquil Airport via Amsterdam by KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. The value of the round trip travel from Kualalumpur International Airport to Guayaquil International Airport was charged Rs.78,521/-. On the date of journey at 10-00 p.m. the complainant duly reported to Kualalumpur Airport for checking and immigration and after that the boarding pass was issued for journey from Kualalumpur to Guayaquil via Amsterdam. The complainant boarded the plane with the boarding pass but he was forced to get down. Because of such humiliation the complainant suffered loss of business and also suffered financial loss. The complainant wrote a letter to o.p. no.2 to refund the value of air ticket but no action was taken. Subsequently the complainant sent another lawyer’s letter but no effective measure was taken by o.ps. In view of such fact the complainant filed this case praying for return of the price of the ticket of Rs.78,521/- for journey from Kualalumpur to Guayaquil via Amsterdam and also claim for compensation of Rs.15 lakhs and other reliefs.
The o.p. no.2 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that this case relating to a passenger who chose to travel from India to South America via Malaysia and then Amsterdam in Netherland with his return travel from South America to Europe and back to India via Malaysia. The geographically strange, uncommon and unexplained routine aroused suspicion of o.p. no.2 airlines staff in Malaysia before the complainant began the journey on the purchased ticket. The complainant could have easily travelled from Delhi or Mumbai to Amsterdam directly and then on to his destination Guayaquil in South America. The complainant purchased the separate tickets for travel from Hyderabad to Chennai and then to Malaysia before taking a flight to Amsterdam gave rise to apprehension and suspicion about possibility of the passenger being either immigration risk since the passengers travelling via Europe routinely tear up their passports and claim asylum. In the case of the complainant since the travel pattern was peculiar which caused the o.p. no.2 to be suspicion of the complainant’s intention as there is a direct flight to Guayaquil from Delhi / Mumbai International Airport. Visa is not required for Indian nationals for Guayaquil for a maximum stay of 90 days. Even for stay in Netherland no visa is required for Indian national transiting Netherland if he is connecting on to the next available flight and not leaving the airport. The general conditions of the carriage of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines reiterates that the passengers are responsible and liable for procuring all the specific documents, visas and permit required for their journey.
It was stated by o.p. no.2 that the carrier is well within its right to refuse to transport a passenger at any point during embarkation and/or before connecting flight if the passenger is not in position of valid documents or if the carrier has doubts as to the validity of the documents presented. The o.p. also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to take the matter. Since the complainant in the complaint stated that the complainant was going for commercial purpose, therefore the C.P. Act cannot be applicable and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, o.p. no.2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
In spite of receipt of notices other o.ps. did not contest the case and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against other o.ps.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant wanted to travel from Hyderabad to Guayaquil via Amsterdam.
- Whether the complainant was deboarded from the flight.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased ticket from o.p. no.1 at a price of Rs.96,459/- for the journey from Hyderabad to Chennai to Kualalumpur via Amsterdam to Guayaquil, during 19.6.09 to reach on 21.6.09 and back about same rout on 12.7.09 to Hyderabad on 13.7.09. The complainant purchased confirmed ticket. During the travel he was deboarded though the boarding pass was issued for the journey from Kualalumpur to Guayaquil via Amsterdam. He was provided with the boarding pass but he was forced to get down which caused humiliation, loss of business to the complainant for which the complainant had to file this case seeking relief for compensation and other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant emphasized that o.p. no.2 through ld. lawyer offered Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant but the said amount was not accepted by the complainant for which the case has proceeded for so many years. In view of such facts and circumstances the complainant prayed for the amount paid by him for the purchase of air ticket as well as compensation. In support of the said contention ld. lawyer for the complainant cited a judgment of the case of Jeeja Ghosh vs. Union of India and others whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass an order directing the airlines to pay compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to the said passenger since she was not allowed to board the aircraft for her disability.
Ld. lawyer for o.p. no.2 argued that the complainant filed this case on the basis of inflated amount of Rs.18,16,494/- with the allegation of deficiency in service against o.p. no.2. The instant case concerned a passenger who chose to travel from India to South America via Malaysia and then via Amsterdam with his return travel similarly from South America to Europe and back to India via Malaysia. The complainant could have easily travelled directly from Delhi / Mumbai to Amsterdam and then on his destination. It was emphasized by ld. lawyer for o.p. no.2 that this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. as per Sec 11(2) of C.P. Act a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction o.p. actually or voluntarily resides or carries on business. In view of the said fact this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Apart from the said fact the complainant stated that he went for commercial purpose and therefore the complainant cannot get any help as per the provisions laid down in the C.P. Act. In the case of travel through air the condition of contract is passenger shall comply with the govt. travel requirements, present exit, entry and other required documents and arrive at airport by the time fixed by the carrier or if no time is fixed, early enough to complete departure procedures. The complainant was responsible for procuring all the documents. Since the complainant himself was at fault therefore right to refuse carriage to passengers in such cases and shall not be liable for consequences suffered by passengers. There are certain restrictions in respect of carrying passengers. The carriage may refuse to transport passengers and their baggage if one or more of the following cases has occurred or is likely to occur. Carrier in its reasonable discretion that such action is necessary whereby the behavior of the passenger is not suitable or does not carry the proper documents etc. In support of the contention ld. lawyer for o.p. no.2 relied on a decision as reported in III (1999) CPJ 28 (SC) that the deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection and shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manners of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above and also relying upon the warsaw and hague conventions which has the force of law in India under the Carriage By Air Act 1972 claims for non bodily injuries i.e. mental agony, torture, stress, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment etc. are executed in the absence of physical injury and no injury was caused to the complainant therefore the claim of the complainant was exorbitant and accordingly, o.p. no.2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the complainant booked the ticket for a flight in order to fly to Amsterdam from Kualalumpur International Airport and he wanted to visit Guayaquil in Ecuador from Amsterdam. Both the tickets were booked in the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. On 19.6.09 date fixed for going to Amsterdam and while he was for that purpose at the Kualalumpur Airport checking was made and immigration was completed. It is also found from the materials on record that he got the boarding pass and while he entered the flight at about 11-00 p.m. he was forced to get down without any explanation at the Kualalumpur International Airport. The only plea taken by o.p. no.2 is that since the complainant availed of a peculiar rout for that reason suspicion cropped up in the mind of airlines staff for which he was taken away from the flight. Because of such taking away of the complainant from the flight refraining him from his desire object of visiting the destination airport the complainant suffered mental agony and he was also humiliated due to such behavior made by the airlines staff to the complainant. The complainant though explained the reason but he was not appreciated that he had the difficulty if he is allowed to the place he will suffer financial loss and his business will also suffer for the said purpose. From the materials on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased to and fro air tickets from o.p. no.1 for availing of the flight of o.p. no.2 and for that purpose he paid Rs.78,521/- and he also paid Rs.17,974/- for journey from Hyderabad, Chennai, Kualalumpur and back. Considering the said evidence on record and since no compensation was paid by o.p. no.2 we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get back the price of the ticket as well as he should be compensated for mental agony and sufferings he has met for the behavior shown by airlines staff of o.p. no.2. The complainant will also be entitled to get the litigation cost for filing this case though the complainant before filing of the case made several representations but no action was taken on behalf of o.ps. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.320/2010 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. no.2 and dismissed ex parte without cost against other o.ps. The o.p. no.2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.96,495/- (Rupees ninety six thousand four hundred ninety five) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
