Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1054/2011

Ajay Saluja - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Emirates Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1054/11              Dated:

In the matter of:

SH. AJAY SALUJA, DIRECTOR

AGE EDUCATION CHANNEL PCT. LTD.,

9A/1, IST FLOOR, 105,

CHANNA MARKET,W.E.A,

KAROL BAGH,

PALAM, NEW DELHI

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

MR. VINAY MALHOTRA,

REGIONAL MANAGER,

NORTH & EAST INDIA,

EMIRATES AIRLIES,

DLF CENTRE, 7^TH FLOOR,

PARLIAMENT STREE,

NEW DELHI

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

Member: Ritu Garodia

 

The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on part of OP for denied boarding despite issue of boarding pass.

The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant and his son were travelling from London to India on 6.7.2015.  0nline check-in was done a day earlier.  The ticket confirmation for check in is annexed with the complainant.   The complainant was refused boarding by OP Airlines and he had to purchase a fresh ticket with Kingfisher Airlines for the same sector on 8.7.15 (Tickets annexed).  Notices were sent to OP but only vague reply with assurance to investigate the matter was given.

OP in its reply has taken the plea that AED 32,115, i.e. Rs.4,69,000/- was due from complainant for various in flight purchases made from 24 April, 2010 to 26 April, 2011 which was duly annexed.  These in-flight purchases were allegedly paid through credit card by signing in-flight sales vouchers and purchases slips which were denied by bank.  It is further contended that travel prevention department of OP had handed over a letter to passenger demanding outstanding payments.  Correspondence between travel prevention department and airport staff had been placed on record files.  OP also alleges that complainant after receiving the letter left the airport with assurances of payment.

We have given thoughtful consideration to arguments and examined the pleadings and correspondence on record.  The tickets and boarding pass issued are admitted position by both parties.  The vouchers annexed reveal that in flight purchase was made from 24.4.10 to 19.6.11 and Master Card number is specified with a noting “transaction confirmed” and signature of cardholder.  The letter handed over to Complainant by OP on date of travel (duly annexed by OP as Annexure R-2) discloses that amount of AED 32,115/- had to be settled prior to travel.  It can be consequently inferred that complainant was allowed to travel only after clearance of dues.  Internal correspondence between the various departments of OPs (Annexure R-4) shows that airport staff was directed by travel prevention unit to recover the said amount.  Airport staff has replied that “passenger was not aggressive but was insistent that bank has made errors. His statements show the money has been paid” Complainant has specifically denied the allegation regarding denial by his banker.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material.  In our view, the question is whether OP can deny the boarding on confirmed ticket, even if assuming that he owed some money and Travel Prevention Deptt. informed OP of it.  The due process required that complainant should have been asked by Airlines on reaching Delhi (India) about outstanding bills, and his future travel should have been prevented rather than return journey from an alien  places.  A proper legal notice on failure to show payment by bank would have sufficient.  The complainant admittedly stated that bank has made some errors.  It certainly required clarification from bank, on reaching India.  

OP in their zeal to collect the money ostensibly owed to them ignored the due process of law.  OP resorted to bullying and maligning the reputation of an honest passenger and denied him boarding on a perfectly valid boarding pass.  The unfortunate passenger in a foreign land with a confirmed ticket was faced with unforeseen despair and misery to postpone his travel without having any arrangement for accommodation.  He had to purchase a fresh ticket to return to his homeland.  OP had no grounds to threaten the passenger with denial of barding in order to extort some presumed amount owed to organization by complainant.

The arm twisting tactics used by OP reeks of unfair trade practices carried on by them overseas where passengers are completely at their mercy and dependent on their services.

We, therefore, award Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to complainant for harassment, unethical and unjust trade practices resulting in mental agony, physical inconveniences. We, however, subject the payment of compensation order by us, on complainant first showing payment by bank to OP of AED 32,125, equivalent to Rs.4,09,000/- as complainant claimed that his bank might have made some errors.  In case the payment are not shown, complainant will not be entitle to any compensation and Rs.4,09,000/- will be adjusted by OP against the outstanding to the extent of Rs.1 lakh.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free

of cost.

Pronounced in open Court on 30.11.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER