Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

984/2009

Vinaya Natarajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Aviation company of India Ltd. & another - Opp.Party(s)

Ram & Ram

01 Mar 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 23.10.2009

                                                                          Date of Order : 01.03.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP. : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.984/2009

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 01^ST DAY OF MARCH 2019

                                 

Miss. Vinaya Natarajan,

D/o. Dr. P.H. Natarajan,

Residing at:-

Dhanalakshmi,

No.34, S.I.P.E. Colony,

Nanganallur,

Chennai – 600 061.                                                     .. Complainant.                                                

 

    ..Versus..

 

1. National Aviation Company of India Limited,

Represented by its C.R.M.,

Airlines House,

No.113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,

New Delhi – 110 001.       

 

2. Air India,

Represented by its C.R.M.,

No.19, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.                                              ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for the complainant                 : M/s. RAM & RAM

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. N.G.R. Prasad & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.72,689.50/- spent by the complainant due to the negligence on the part of Air India and to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation for negligence and resultant damages to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that she booked ticket on 12.05.2009 for her travel from Chennai to Dhammam in Saudi Arabia on 29.05.2009 through the opposite parties Airlines and return ticket from Dhammam to Chennai on 13.07.2009.  The complainant was holding visa issued by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on 23.04.2009.  It was valid for only 30 days i.e. till 22.05.2009.   The opposite parties’ Airlines were negligent in issuing the ticket for the travel from Chennai to Dhammam knowing fully well that visa expired on 22.05.2009.  The opposite parties even without verifying the travel document including visa permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia in Air India Flight No.A1-817.  Ex.A2 is the boarding pass.  Ex.A3 is the visa showing the expiry date.  The complainant submits that immediately after alighting from the plane proceeded to immigration counter at Dhammam, the authorities in the immigration counter detained the complainant stating that her visa had expired on 23.05.2009 itself which caused great inconvenience and mental agony. The complainant submits that the immigration authorities at Dhammam directed the complainant to deport to Chennai by next flight itself after obtaining signatures.  The complainant submits that the deporting authorities collected the fare as follows:

(i) Deportee Fare – SAR                                :       1050

(ii) Detention Meal – SAR                             :       90

(iii) The fine imposed by the Immigration

      Authorities at Dhammam        - SAR        :       3000

                                                                    

                                        Total                 :       4140

                                                                      

which is equivalent amount in Indian Rupees, amounting to Rs.54,655/- and the complainant has expended another sum of Rs.54,855/-towards airfare etc.   Since the opposite parties has not come forward to settle the amount expended due to negligence of the opposite parties legal notice dated:19.08.2009 was issued for which, the opposite party sent a false reply dated:09.09.2009 & 23.09.2009.   The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties state that the complainant had purchased the ticket for her travel by the opposite party flight AI 817 dated:29.05.2009 through the travel agent M/s. Kanoo Travels, Damman, Saudi Arabia; since the complainant’s parents are residing at Damman and made payment of the ticket in Saudi Riyal 1346 (i.e. SAR 1346).  The opposite parties has not booked any ticket in their office.   The opposite parties state that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the ticket as alleged.  The mistake committed by M/s. Kanoo travels, Dammam of Saudi Arabia alone who is the necessary party not added a party in this case.   The opposite parties state that the period of visa expired resulting that the complainant was deported from Dammam immediately alighting from the flight.  The opposite parties state that immediately after deported to Cochin, the complainant made suitable arrangement to reach Chennai without causing any inconvenience. 

3.     The opposite parties state that the Article 14 of the conditions of Carriage Act which governs the international travel reads as under:

“Article 14 – Administrative Formalities

1. GENERAL

        The passenger shall be solely responsible for complying with all laws, regulations, orders, demands and travel requirements of countries to be flown from into or over and with Carrier’s Regulations and instructions.   Carrier shall not be liable for any aid or information given by any agent or employee of Carrier to any passenger in connection with obtaining necessary documents or visas or complying with such laws, regulations, orders, demands and requirements, whether given in writing or otherwise or for the consequences to any passenger resulting from his or her failure to obtain such documents or visas or to comply with such laws, regulations, orders, demands, requirements, rules or instructions”.

Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and documents Ex.B1 is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.72,689.50/- collected by the opposite party as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation for gross negligence, mental agony and damages as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

Both parties field their respective written arguments.  Heard the opposite parties’ Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The complainant pleaded and contended that she booked ticket on 12.05.2009 for the travel through the opposite parties Airlines form Chennai to Dhammam in Saudi Arabia on 29.05.2009 as per Ex.A1 and return ticket from Dhammam to Chennai.  Ex.A1 is the copy of ticket.  The complainant was holding visa issued by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on 23.04.2009.  It was valid for only 30 days i.e. till 22.05.2009.   The opposite parties’ Airlines were negligent in issuing the ticket for the travel from Chennai to Dhammam knowing fully well that visa expired on 22.05.2009.  The opposite parties even without verifying the travel document including visa permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia in Air India Flight No.A1-817.  Ex.A2 is the boarding pass.  Ex.A3 is the visa showing the expiry date.  Ex.A4 is the passport.  Ex.A5 is the return ticket.  Further the complainant contended that immediately after alighting from the plane proceeded to immigration counter at Dhammam, the authorities in the immigration counter detained the complainant stating that her visa had expired on 23.05.2009 itself which caused great inconvenience and mental agony.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the immigration authorities at Dhammam directed the complainant to deport to Chennai by next flight itself after obtaining signatures.  The return ticket were marked as Ex.A6 & Ex.A7 from Dhammam to Cochin dated:30.05.2009 and from Cochin to Chennai dated:31.05.2009 respectively.

7.     Further the complainant contended that the deporting authorities collected

(i) Deportee Fare – SAR                                :       1050

(ii) Detention Meal – SAR                             :       90

(iii) The fine imposed by the Immigration

      Authorities at Dammam - SAR                 :       3000

                                                                       

                                        Total                 :       4140

                                                                      

which is equivalent to in Indian Rupees, amounting to Rs.54,655/- and the complainant has expended another sum of Rs.54,855/-towards airfare etc.  Ex.A8 & Ex.A9 are the Deportee Report and the receipt issued by National Aviation Co. of India Ltd.  The opposite parties negligently without taking due care issued ticket and boarding pass for the time barred visa amounts to deficiency in service.   Since the opposite parties has not come forward to settle the amount expended due to negligence of the opposite parties, due legal notice dated:19.08.2009 as per Ex.A10 was issued for which, the opposite party sent a false reply dated:09.09.2009 & 23.09.2009 as per Ex.A11 & ExA12.   Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint claiming compensation.  But on a careful perusal of records, it is the duty of the complainant who undertakes travel shall possess valid visa and tickets.  The complainant also admitted in the complaint that “the complainant had inadvertently omitted to verify the date of expiry of the VISA” which has caused enormous mental agony and pain to her and the parents of the complainant.

8.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties would contend that the complainant had purchased the ticket for travel by the opposite party flight AI 817 dated:29.05.2009 through the travel agent M/s. Kanoo Travels, Dhamman, Saudi Arabia; since the complainant’s parents are residing at Dhamman and made payment of the ticket in Saudi Riyal 1346 (i.e. SAR 1346).  The opposite parties has not booked any ticket in their office.   Further contention of the opposite parties is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the ticket as alleged.  The mistake committed by M/s. Kanoo travels, Dhammam of Saudi Arabia alone who is the necessary party to this complaint but not added as a party in this case.  One of the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties has taken place within the jurisdiction also.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that admittedly, the period of visa expired resulting that the complainant was deported from Dhammam immediately alighting from the flight.  The complainant miserably failed to implead the immigration authorities at Chennai Airport or Dhamman Airport who are necessary parties in this case.  Without adding them as a party, the complaint is defective and the complaint should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that immediately after deported to Cochin, the complainant made suitable arrangement to reach Chennai without causing any inconvenience.  Eventhough the complainant issued legal notice with misconception for which, nobody the complainant alone is liable. 

9.     Further the contention of the opposite parties is that Article 14 of the conditions of carriage which governs the international travel reads as under:

“Article 14 – Administrative Formalities

1. GENERAL

          The passenger shall be solely responsible for complying with all laws, regulations, orders, demands and travel requirements of countries to be flown from into or over and with Carrier’s Regulations and instructions.   Carrier shall not be liable for any aid or information given by any agent or employee of Carrier to any passenger in connection with obtaining necessary documents or visas or complying with such laws, regulations, orders, demands and requirements, whether given in writing or otherwise or for the consequences to any passenger resulting from his or her failure to obtain such documents or visas or to comply with such laws, regulations, orders, demands, requirements, rules or instructions”.

10.    The learned Counsel for the opposite parties cited a decision reported in:

I (1992) CPJ 5 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

Between

P. Gopinathan

-Versus-

The Chairman, Air India

Held that

          “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14(1)(d) – “Air lines” – Complainant purchased a Air ticket for U.A.E. – At the airport he did not find his name on the list of passengers travelling to Dubai though he possessed OK ticket – Complainant left for another flight – Alleges that he lost a job because of late arrival in Dubai – Claimed compensation – Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation? – No.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 01^st day of March 2019. 

 

MEMBER-II                                                              PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	29.05.2009  13.07.2009	Copy of ticket from Chennai to Dammam and the return ticket
Ex.A2	29.05.2009	Copy of boarding pass issued by Air India to board the flight from Chennai to Dammam
Ex.A3		Copy of the relevant pages of the passport containing the VISA and the seal of the Immigration Authority at Chennai
Ex.A4	29.05.2009	Copy of  the relevant page of the passport containing the security check seal and Immigration check seal at Chennai
Ex.A5		Copy of the document to show that her return ticket had been utilized
Ex.A6	30.05.2009	Copy of boarding pass from Dammam to Cochin
Ex.A7	31.05.2009	Copy of boarding pass from Cochin to Chennai
Ex.A8	30.05.2009	Copy of Deportee Report by Airport Manager, Dhahran, Air India
Ex.A9	31.05.2009	Copy of receipt issued by the National Aviation Company of India Ltd.
Ex.A10	19.08.2009	Copy of the legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A11	09.09.2009	Copy of the interim reply sent by the opposite party
Ex.A12	23.09.2009	Copy of the detailed reply sent by the opposite party

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1

Copy of extract from the IATA regulations relating to the condition of carriage

 

 

 

MEMBER-II                                                              PRESIDENT