D.o.F:26/3/2011
D.o.O:31/10/2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.75/11
Dated this, the 31st day of October 2011
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Abdulrahiman Andu,
S/o Andu Kolikkatta,
Kolikkatta House, Chengala,Kasaragod : Complainant
(Adv.Shrikanta Shetty,Kasaragod)
1.Nodal Officer, Kingfisher Airlines Ltd,
U.B.Tower,Level-2, U.B.City, 24,
Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 5600001. : Opposite parties
(Adv.N.K.Manoj Kumar,Hosdurg)
2.Akbar Travels Pvt.Ltd,
Cherkala,Kasaragod.(exparte)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
Whether 6 months if refers to a period of 180 days or refers to a period of six calendar months? This is the controversial aspect to be settled in this case-
Abdulrahiman Andu a Senior citizen was prevented from his proposed journey in the sector Bangalore- Dubai in flight No.IT0045 on 9/1/2011 by the officials of Airlinery alleging that he require entry permit from United Arab emirates since he stayed in India more than 180 days. As a result he suffered and he had to wait in the lounge of Bangalore Airport till 10/1/2011 upto 18.45 hrs to arrange a confirmation of entry permit from Abudhabi.
2. In response to the notices issued by the Forum, 2nd opposite party remained non responsive . Hence 2nd opposite party had to be set exparte. Ist opposite party M/s Kingfisher Airlines Limited filed their version. According to Ist opposite party as per the Dubai Emmigration Regulation a passenger who has stayed out of the country for more than 180 days (both the days of exit and entry are inclusive) should not be allowed to board on the flight even if he is travelling on the 181th day since the residence permit becomes invalid if bearer resides out of UAE beyond 180 days. But the complainant was travelling on the 181th day from the date of his exit ie 13/7/2010 from Dubai. In view of the above boarding pass is denied to the complainant and he was advised to arrange a valid entry permit or to accept refund of the unused portion of the ticket. But the complainant did not accept refund on his ticket and refused to leave the Airport insisting that he would arrange another entry permit. Later he arranged a fresh entry permit on the basis of which he was allowed to travel on the next day ie on 10th January 2011 without any additional charges. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.
The further contention of the 2nd opposite party is that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint since the 2nd opposite party have no office or branch office within the jurisdiction of this Forum.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his claim as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A9 marked. On the side of opposite party no oral or documentary evidence adduced. Both sides heard. Documents perused.
4. Ext.A1(a) is the flight ticket issued by the 2nd opposite party M/s Akbar Travels who is the travel agent arranged the ticket to travel in the sector Kozhikode-Bangalore, and Bangalore –Dubai terminal in the airline operated by 2nd opposite party. The date of journey is 9/1/2011 and the status of the ticket is confirmed. Ext.A1(b) is the flight ticket of Ist opposite party issued to the complainant for his journey on 10/1/2011 in the sector Bangalore-Dubai Terminal. Ext.A2 is the copy of boarding pass issued to the complainant in the sector Bangalore-Dubai on 9/1/2011. Ext.A4 is the copy of boarding pass dtd 10/1/2011 to fly in the route Bangalore Dubai. Ext.A5 is the copy of the passport of the complainant. Ext.A5(a) is the copy of the residence permit issued from United Arab Emirates to the complainant. It is valid for the period from 22/10/2008 to 21/10/2011. On the bottom of the Ext.A5(e) it is shown that residence permit becomes invalid if bearer resides out of the UAE for more than six months. Ext.A5(a) shows that complainant reached Mumbai Airport on 13/7/2010 Ext.A5(b) proves that complainant left Bangalore Airport on 10/1/2011. Ext.A5(c) shows that complainant again returned to India on 31/1/2011. Ext.A6 is the entry permit dated 10/1/2011 issued from the Ministry of Interior General Directorate of Residence & Foreign Affairs Abudabi to the complainant. In Ext.A6 it is specifically shown that it is issued to whom stays out side the country more than 6 months. In Ext.A6 also the date of last leave is noted as 13/7/2010 (written in Arabic figure) Ext.A7 is the copy of lawyer notice caused by the complainant to opposite parties .
5. From Ext.A5(e) it is seen that the Residence Permit become invalid if the holder resides out of UAE for more than 6 months . Relying on Ext.A5(e) the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was holding a valid visa on the date of his journey on 9/1/2011 and he was not crossed 6 months from the date of exit on 13/7/2010. According to him 6 months can never be equated to 180 days since some months consists 31 days and February is less than 30 days. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Himachal Techno Engineers reported in 2010 (3) KLT 575 (SC) to substantiate his contention. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Apex court held that as per General Clauses Act Sec.3(35) A month does not refer to a period of 30 days but refers to actual period of a calendar month when a period prescribed is 3 months as contrasted from 90 days from a specified date, said period would expire in the third month on the date corresponding to the date upon which period starts.
6. The residence permit no where says that it would become invalid after 180 days from the date of exit. Though opposite party contended in their version that as per the Dubai Immigrations Regulation a passenger who has stayed out of the country for more than 180 days should not be allowed to board the flight even if he is travelling on the 181st day. No such regulations were produced before the Forum to substantiate this contention.
7. It is further stated in the version that the residence permit becomes invalid if bearer reside out of UAE ‘beyond 180 days’ . But we could not see such a clause in the residence permit issued to the complainant. As per the residence permit issued to the complainant it becomes invalid if the bearer resides out of UAE beyond 6 months.
8. Admittedly the complainant left UAE on 13/7/2010 . So the 6 months period would expire only on 12/1/2011. Hence on the date of journey ie on 9/1/2011 complainant had a valid residence permit and therefore his detention alleging the expiry of his residence permit amounts to deficiency in service and therefore opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the harassment and mental agony caused to him due to the illegal detention.
9. The further contention of the 2nd opposite party is that the Forum lacks jurisdiction to try this case is also not sustainable since the complainant purchased the ticket from 2nd opposite party who carries on business in Kasaragod District within the territorial limits of this Forum . As per Sec.11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business (or has a branch office) or personally works for gain. The decision cited by the opposite party, in their version is therefore not applicable in this case.
10. The further technical contention that the Board of Directors of the opposite party would have sued and the Deputy General Manager –Legal is the duly authorized person to be sued is also not sustainable since such technical contentions are considered only in the civil courts where code of civil procedure is applicable . Consumer Forums are so designed whereby a common man can present his case without bothering about the legal impediments and hair splitting technicalities.
11. Ist opposite party also taken a contention that the complaint has been signed and verified by the complainant on 26/3/2011 at Kasaragod and who left the country on 10/1/2011 and he has nowhere declared that he returned back to India on 26/3/2011. This contention is also no legs to stand. The passport of the complainant shows that he returned to India on 31/1/2011 itself.
12. The complainant Sri.Abdulrahiman Andu is a senior citizen aged 70 years unnecessarily detained by the officials of 1st opposite party and he could travel only after obtaining a new residence permit. He constrained to spend a whole day in the lounge of Bangalore Airport due the deficiency in service on the part of Ist opposite party. Therefore Ist opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and hardships suffered by him.
Therefore we allow this complaint and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay a compensation of `20,000/- to the complainant with a cost of `5000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which ` 20000/- will carry interest @9% from the date of complaint till payment.
Exts:
Ext.A1(a) is the flight tickets issued by the 2nd opposite party
A1(b) is the flight ticket of Ist opposite party issued to the complainant
A2to A4 - copy of boarding pass issued to the complainant
A5- copy of the passport.
A5(a)- copy of the residence permit .
A5(b) proves that complainant left Bangalore Airport on 10/1/2011
A5(c) invalid residence permit
A6- dtd 10/1/2011- entry permit
A7-11/2/11- copy of lawyer notice
A8&A9- postal acknowledgment
Pw1- Abdulrahiman Andu- complainant
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
