Delhi

New Delhi

CC/926/2014

Roxana Ferreira Lima Paravicini - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Qatar Airways - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC-926/2014   

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

Roxana Ferreira Lima Paravini

Av.henrique Dumont 85/201

Ipanema

22410-060

Brazil                                                                                      ...Complainant

VERSUS

 

Qatar Airways

Company incorporated under

The laws of Qatar, having its

Branch Office at Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan,

28, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,

P.O. Box : 110001, New Delhi, India.                                       ...Respondent

 

Corum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Shri Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

                                                        Date of Institution : 12.02.2014        

                                                                                             Date of Order   :    10.04.2023

 

 

ORDER

 

Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act) against Opposite Party (in short OP) alleging deficiency of service. The complainant is a 54 years old a Argentinean National woman residing in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
2. The complainant had made travel arrangements from India to Barcelona on 17.02.2014, in Qatar Airways fight number ‘Qatar Airways 563’ having a layover at Doha and a connecting flight from Doha, to Barcelona in flight Number ‘Barcelona Q139.
3. The Complainant arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, at 2.30 am on 17.02.2014.  The employee of Qatar Airways who the checked-in the complainant and issued her a boarding pass informed the Complainant that her luggage (luggage booked was to be delivered to Barcelona) exceeded the maximum permitted weight and that she was liable to pay in excess luggage charge for the excess luggage which was equal to USD 600 which is equal to INR 36,000/-. 
4. Upon arrival in Doha at 6.40 am, local time, where the Complainant had to take a connecting flight i.e. ‘Barcelona Q 139’, she was transferred to the ‘Qatar Airways Security Desk’, where her passport and boarding pass was rechecked by the Qatar Airways employees. After checking her passport and boarding pass, the complainant was informed about the new provision according to which a person should have a passport which should have been issued less than 10 years ago to enter into Spain. As alleged, the Complainant with utter shock told the Qatar Airways employee that no such information about the new provision had been communicated to her before this. The Complainant was informed by the Qatar Airway’s employee that some mistake has been committed by the employee of Qatar Airways during the time of check-in at New Delhi and that, the employee should have apprehended by looking at the Complainant’s passport itself that it wasn’t possible for the Complainant to enter into Spain with her present passport. It is apropos to mention here that the last revalidation stamping of the Complainant’s passport was done on 01.11.2010 which was valid for five years i.e. till 01.11.2015 and permitted the bearer to pass without any delay or hindrance. Since, the Complainant travelled within the period in which the passport was valid, she was authorized to enter into Spain.
5. The Complainant was made to stay at the airport in Doha from 6.40 am till 1.15 local time approximately 6 hours, during which, the Complainant was asked by the Qatar Airways employee whether she could afford a ticked to Rio De Janeiro in Brazil, the place where in the Complainant dwelled. The complainant expressed her complete incapacity in doing so. The complainant also informed the opposite party that that the complainant is a patient of Hypertension, and is on a continuous dose of prescription medicine for the purpose of ongoing treatment of her medical condition. By the time, the Complainant was already feeling very tired and dizzy due lack of sleep and rest for a long period of time, and was concerned about her medical condition. At this point of time, the Complainant enquired about the time for the first flight to Brazil and was informed that on the following day, on 18.02.2014 there was a flight to Sao Paulo, Brazil, 7.20 am.  Thereafter, since more than 6 hours had lapsed, the Complainant informed the Qatar Airways employees that she was too tired and wanted to get some rest.  At 1.15 pm, local time, the Qatar Airways Employees put the complaint in a taxi to Hotel Safir, where the Complainant reached at 1.37 pm, local time.
6. Before leaving for the hotel from the airport, the Complainant was unable to locate her baggage and thus, walked to the baggage sector of Qatar Airways, where she enquired about her luggage which was supposed to be delivered to Barcelona. The employees couldn’t locate the luggage and asked her to wait. The complainant was informed that her luggage would be sent to the Hotel. The Complainant called the Qatar Airways baggage sector multiple times, but did not receive any positive response. Finally, at 00.36 am, local time, Doha; on 18.02.2014 the Complainant was informed that her luggage has been found and would be handed over to the hotel.
7. On the next day, i.e. 18.02.2014, at 5.00 am, local time, Doha; the Complainant was transferred from the hotel to the airport where the complainant was informed that the Doha-Sao Paulo flight permitted a luggage weight of 32 kgs per person and that the luggage of the Complainant exceeded the permitted weight. It is important to mention here that the Complainant had already paid the excess luggage charge at New Delhi and the Complainant informed the Qatar Airways employee but, she had already paid the excess luggage charge at New Delhi and showed the receipt to the said employee. However, the employee even after seeing the receipt persistently kept on asking her to pay for the same.  Furthermore, there was bafflement amongst the employees of Qatar Airways with regard to whether the complainant was required to pay the excess luggage charge.
8. The Complainant was already getting late for boarding her flight to Sao Paulo, and therefore in order to avoid losing her flight, the Complainant paid the excess luggage charge and then boarded her flight. It thus alleged by the complainant, she had to endure additional financial loss and physical strain as she had to travel from Sao Paulo to Rio de Janeiro at her own expense. The complainant submits that she had already bought and paid for a flight ticket from Barcelona to Alicante, flight no. ‘Vueling VY 1306’ and had booked and paid rent of a Department of Season at Alicante where she was supposed to stay for three months until her return to Rio de Janiero.
9. The Complainant thus alleges that as a result of the said acts/omissions on the part of Qatar Airways employees, the Complainant is suffering from serious hypertension and had to endure mental agony, trauma, distress, physical discomfort and panic as a result of which the medical condition of the Complainant worsened and the Complainant had to undergo Psychotherapy. A copy of the medical report of the Complainant has been annexed as Annexure J.
10. The complainant further alleges that she had to suffer huge financial loss, physical strain, panic and mental trauma due the heedlessness and irresponsible behavior of Qatar Airways employees. The Complainant is aggrieved by the service meted out to her and claims compensation for the mental agony, trauma, physical discomfort and panic as a result of which the Complainant had to undergo psychological treatment; such conduct on part of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service and reflects its indifference to the problems faced by its customers.
11. The Complainant had preferred the following claims with the Opposite Party with regard to the expenses paid during the travel:

Sl. No.	Particulars	Expenses Incurred
	Flight charges from New Delhi, India to Barcelona, Spain	USD 452, equal to INR 32,520/-
	Flight charges from Barcelona to Alicante	143.77 Euros equal to INR 11,214/-
	Booking charges and rent for three months of Department of Season	320 Euros equal to INR 24,960/-
	Travel expenses from Sao Paulo, Brazil to Rio de Janerio, Brazil	R$74.50 equal to INR 1862/-

 

12. Apart from the statement as above, the Complainant states that she had to pay the charges for carrying extra luggage at the New Delhi airport as well the airport at Doha amounting to USD 600 equal to INR 36,000/- for which she is qualified to be compensated. It is further submitted that the Complainant had to face extreme stress and trauma during the travel which exacerbated her problem of hypertension because of which she had to undergo psychological treatment. Thus, it is submitted that the Complainant is entitled to a total compensation INR 1,06,556/- with an interest at the rate of 15% p.a. for the expenses incurred; and a sum of INR 3,00,000/- as compensatory damages for the physical strain, mental agony and trauma that the Complainant had to endure.
13. With the aforesaid grievances, the Complainant has approached this Commission with the following reliefs:-

1.        Direct the Opposite Party to make up for its conduct amounting to beneficiary in service, by refunding the entire amount of financial loss to the Complainant.
2.        Direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensatory damages to the Complainant for the economic/financial loss suffered by the Complainant.
3. Issue such other directions as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

14. In reply to the allegations as made in the complain, the opposite party submits that excess baggage charges were collected from the Complainant as per rules and free baggage allowance is limited on all airlines.  It is stated that it is also the procedure to check a passenger’s baggage to the final destination (unless otherwise requested by the passenger) which reduces a passengers botheration and time of collecting his/her bags, taking them through security and checking them in at every airport of transit.
15. As regard the verification of documents, it is submitted by the opposite party that it is mandatory procedure for the documents of every passenger to be checked at every airport including the airports of transit; the documents of the Complaint where checked at Doha in accordance with the procedure and that no justification was required for the same.  It is stated that the Complainant was rightly informed that passengers holding a passport, which was older than 10 years could not enter Spain. The allegation of the Complainant that she was not informed of the same at an earlier point of time, the opposite party submits that while check-in at Delhi, the same is not tenable as it is the passenger’s own duty to ensure that the passenger is in possession of all appropriate and necessary documents for travel.
16. With regard to allegation that the opposite party admitted its mistake, it is submitted by the opposite party that at New Delhi, the Complainant's papers were checked for her travel to Doha as from New Delhi, the Complainant was travelling to Doha. It is stated that at Doha the Complainant's documents were verified for the Complainant's entry into Barcelona, Spain, as it was from Doha that the Complainant was travelling to Barcelona. It is stated that at Doha, the Complainant was rightly informed that her passport, being older than 10 years old, was not valid for entry into Spain. It is stated that the revalidation stamp of 01.11.2010 on the Complainant's passport, which is stated to have been valid till 01.11.2015, unfortunately did not dispense with the requirement of a passenger's passport being less than 10 years old, which was a requirement of the Government of Spain and which could not have been waived by the Opposite Party. The validity of the passport of the Complainant was not sufficient to entitle her enter into Spain. The opposite party has denied that Complainant was informed by the Qatar Airways employees at Doha that the employees at New Delhi should have realized by scrutinizing their passport that the Complainant would be unable to enter Spain with a passport held by her. It is also denied by the opposite party that the Complainant got in touch with the Argentinean and Spanish authorities at Doha and was informed that she would be allowed to enter Spain under the visa waiver programme and advised her to take her scheduled connecting flight. The opposite party has denied that the Complainant informed the employees of the Qatar Airways at Doha about the same and yet was not allowed to board the flight No. Q 139 to Barcelona. The opposite party submits that in the event of a defect in a travel document such as the passport, an endorsement waving the defect is required from the passport issuing authority whereas in case of a defect in the visa an endorsement on the defective visa is required from the issuing embassy. The opposite party, therefore, submits that a defect in the travel papers of a passenger cannot be overlooked or ignored on a passenger orally stating that the "authorities have allowed her to enter".
17. The opposite party submits that the complainant had to suffer on account of her own failure in ensuring that she had proper and valid travel documents to enter into Spain and the Complainant was not harassed by the employees of the Opposite Party at Doha or that they demanded" to know whether the Complainant could afford to buy a fresh ticket from Doha to Rio De Janeiro.
18. The allegations made or the defence put forth by the opposite party has been denied by the complainant in her replication to the written statement.  The complainant in her replication states that she is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite party for the deliberate and intentional acts done by it. The complainant submits that the bare reading of the ICAO notification dated 2^nd November, 2009 cited by the opposite party, clearly mentions all contracting states to issue machine-readable passports from April 2010 and no machine readable passports to expire by 1^st April, 2015; the old manual passports were to be made redundant in a phased manner globally in order to avoid in convenience to those holding non machine readable passports.
19. It is further submitted by the complainant that when she applied for extension/renewal the Argentinean Passport authorities renewed her passport with expiry on 1^st November, 2015. The very fact that the complainant’s passport was extended by her government manifests that the notification advised phasing out non machine-readable Passports in a phased manner. It is imperative to re-agitate that though the ICAO in its project mandated that the manual passports be replaced with machine-readable passports, the same was to be conducted globally in a phased manner and the passport of the complainant was valid and adequate for her to travel from Doha to Barcelona.
20. It is very strongly contended by the complainant that she travelled from Rio de Janeiro to Lisbon, (Portugal) with the same passport on 4^th June, 2013 without any problems. The complaint had also travelled from Valencia (Spain) to Marrakesh on 24^th September, 2013 and stayed there until 26^th September, 2013 on the same passport. The complainant then returned to Valencia (Spain) and left from Barcelona on her way to New Delhi on 24^th December, 2013 on the same passport without any problems. She further contends that she being an Argentinean citizen does not require any visa to enter Spain. The complainant further submits that the notification issued by the Indian Government has no relevant to her case as she is not an Indian citizen or governed by the notification issued by the Government of India. She further contends that the printout of the website of VFS Global has been printed out on 28^th September, 2015 nearly nine months after filing of the present complaint by which time the requirements for Visas to Spain may have undergone changes. She states that the notification is for Indians applying for visa from India and not for the complainant who did not require any visa to enter Spain.   
21. We have gone through the complaint. To come to a just conclusion, let us summarize the arguments of the parties; therefore, we will first consider the arguments or objections of the opposite party and thereafter examine them from the version of the complainant. The opposite party resisted the prayers of the complainant on the following four points:

1. The opposite party was right in denying complainant to board her flight from Doha (Qatar) to Barcelona (Spain) as the complainant’s passport was more than 10 years old and not machine-readable; hence it was not valid for entry into Spain.
2. It is correct that that the complainant has relied on a revalidation stamp dated 1^st November, 2012 on her passport which renders her passport valid till 1^st November, 2015 but the revalidation stamp by the Government of Argentina did not dispense with the requirement of the Government of Spain which mandated that all passengers entering Spain should possess a passport which was less then ten years old as the date of travel of the Complainant was 18^th February, 2014. Thus it was not within the power of opposite party to waive the requirement. The opposite party has acted solely on the strength of a notification dated 2^nd November, 2009 issued by ICAO in respect of machine-readable passports.
3. The opposite party has also placed on record a printout from the website of VFS Global (a recognized agency authorized by the government of various countries for facilitating issue of visa) which refers to instructions from the Embassy of Spain w.e.f. 18^th November, 2013 i.e. prior to the date of travel of the complainant and lists passports issued in the last ten years as a mandatory requirement for travelling to Spain. Since complainant’s passport was issued by the government of Argentina on 25^th October, 1996, therefore, the complainant was not eligible to enter into Spain on her passport.
4. Lastly it is argued by the opposite party that in view of judgment datged 6^th March, 2012 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Mumbai in CC/2010/50 titled ‘Maria K Harjani Vs. British Airways, wherein the Airline was not held  deficient for not permitting the complainant to  travel on the ground that she did not have machine readable passport. 

 

22. In reply to the 1^st argument of the opposite party, the complainant submits that she is an Argentinean citizen holding passport issued by that country. The passport was valid for ten years from 25^th October, 1996 to 25^th October, 2001. It was further revalidated for five years more i.e. from 1^st November, 2010 to 1^st November, 2015 and it was a non machine-readable passport. Is is argued on behalf of the complainant that she being an Argentinean Citizen, she does not require any visa to enter Spain. Therefore, it is argued that this argument of the opposite party is not sustainable on her being an Argentinean citizen and she does not require any visa to enter Spain. It is argued by the complainant that if she did not have a valid travel document, it be put the opposite party as to how complainant entere India in the first place and how did she travel to Doha ona flight operated by the opposite party and how did it suddenly become an invalid document to travel to Barcelona. Therefore, it is argued by the complainant that all this clearly show malafides on the part of the opposite party not to allow the complainant to travel to Barcelona on the frivolous ground that the complaint did not have a valid travel document.
23. In response to the second and third arguments of the opposite party, the complaint says that on the same passport she had flown to Barcelona on 24^th September, 2013 and stayed there till 24^th December, 2013. It is further argued by the complainant that she was granted visa to travel to India on this very passport on two occasions i.e. from 7^th December, 2011 till 7^th March, 2012 and from 18^th December, 2013 till 17^th June, 2014. The complaint had flown into India on 11^th February, 2014 on this very passport/travel document. It is argued that there is no force in the submissions of the opposite party.
24. Lastly, in reply to the fourth argument of the opposite party, it is argued by the complainant that the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai is not applicable in this case as the facts of the present complainant are totally different to the facts of that case.
25. We have gone through the records and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The very first document which is relied upon by the opposite party against the complainant is an advisory or order of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) dated 2^nd November, 2009. This document itself clarifies as recommended by ICAO , all non machine-readable passport should expire at 1 April, 2015 at the latest. The relevant portion is quoted below:

“Identifying and preventing the fraudulent use of travel documents must remain a priority. We acknowledge the important contribution of machine readable passports to global security. Consequently, we encourage all International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Contracting States, who currently do not issue machine readable passports, to take all appropriate steps to meet the ICAO requirement approved in 2005 that requires all states to issue compliant machine readable passports from 1 April 2010. As an ICAO recommended practice all non machine readable passport should expire at 1 April 2015 at the latest”.

26. After going the communication as reproduced above, we do not agree with the opposite party that the travel document of the complainant on the date of travel i.e. 17^th February, 2014 was invalid as it clearly says that all non machine readable passport should expire at 1 April, 2015 at the latest.
27. There is one more document relied upon by the opposite party which bears the headline as ‘Apply for VISA to Spain’.  In this paper, the person who has to travel must have the documents detailed therein.  The first opening sentence of this document says: “Please note: with effect from 18 November 2013 as per instruction received from Embassy of Spain, *Checklist* needs to be duly filed in by the Applicant/Travel Agent/Authorized representative and needs to submitted along with the Visa Application. Please note its mandatory to provide the same and is applicable for all India”. The document clearly suggests that it is applicable to Indian citizen.  For two reasons we cannot accept the argument of the opposite party – (1) the complainant is not an Indian Citizen and (2) she had to take connected flight from Doha and not from New Delhi (India). Further as submitted by the complainant she being an Argentinean citizen, does not require VISA for Spain. The complainant was denied boarding the flight to Barcelona not because she did not have a valid visa but because she did not have a valid travel document/passport. There is answer from the opposite party that if the complainant did not have a valid travel document, how she entered India and how she travelled to Doha on the flight operated by the opposite party.  Therefore, this Commission is unable to accept the argument of the opposite party. 
28. We have given our thoughtful consideration to this case.  We are of the view that the complainant has made out a case for claim against the opposite party and hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  We accordingly direct the opposite party to refund the entire amount i.e. INR 1,06,556 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent SI per annum from the date of this complaint till realization. We also grant compensation of Rs. two lakhs for mental agony, trauma and physical strain which the complainant had to endure. A sum of Rs. one lakh is granted as litigation expenses to the complainant.  The opposite party is directed to pay the amount as detailed above to the complainant within four week from today failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest at the enhanced rate of 12 per cent SI per annum.

File be consigned to record room along with a copy of the order.

A copy of this order be provided/sent to all parties free of cost. The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission.

 

 

Poonam Chaudhry

                                                                                              (President)

                                                        

 

 

                                      Shekhar Chandra

                                                                                              (Member)