Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/16/124

Jassar mohammed Kasim - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oman Air - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

                               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN         : PRESIDENT

                               SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR   : MEMBER

                               SRI.VIJU.V.R.                 : MEMBER

CC.NO.124/2016 (Filed on : 09/03/2016)

ORDER DATED : 25/04/2023

COMPLAINANT

Jassar Mohammed Kassim,

S/o.Mohammed Kassim,

Thodiyil Veedu, Odayam,

Varkala

(By Adv.R.Santhosh & Adv.S.Krishna kumar)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. M/s.Oman Air Represented by its Zonal Manager,
3.  

TC No.2/2378(4),

Pattam.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram

2. Zonal Manager,

M/s.Oman Air, 3^rd Floor,

Sreepadmanabha Heights,

TC No.2/2378(4),

Pattam.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram

(By Adv.Abdul Kharim & Adv.Ranjit)

                                                             ORDER

SRI.VIJU.V.R                 : MEMBER

1. The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986. The complainant was working as a store supervisor in Tesco, Jeddah in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia on a monthly salary of 6918 dirhams plus other perks.  In January 2016, his employer sanctioned a single exit re-entry visa was issued to the complainant by his employer on 07/01/2016. The duration of the visa was one month from the date of departure from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The complainant departed from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia to India on 10/01/2016. The complainant had booked the service of the opposite parties 1 & 2 for his return journey to Jeddah, kingdom of Saudi Arabia from Thiruvananthapuram International Airport on 06/02/2016. The opposite parties 1 & 2 issued a valid ticket to the complainant for his return journey in a connected flight from Thiruvananthapuram International Airport to Muscat International Airport in Oman Air Flight No.WY 216 and from there in Oman Air Flight No. WY 673 to King Abdulaziz International Airport Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  The aforesaid Oman Air Flight No.WY 216 was scheduled to depart from Thiruvananthapuram International Airport at 19.55 (7.55 P.m.) on 06/02/2016 and requires a 3.55 hour journey to reach the Muscat International Airport. The connected Oman Air Flight No.WY 674 was scheduled to depart at 23.50 hrs on 06/02/2016 from the Muscat International Airport. The complainant promptly reported before the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport Authorities and the opposite parties 1 & 2 on 06/02/2016 for his journey to his workplace. The baggage of the complainant was also x-rayed and completed all other required formalities at the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport. The employees of the opposite parties 1 & 2 very adamantly restrained the complainant from his entry to the aforesaid flight. According to the employees of the opposite parties 1 & 2 the complainant has no valid visa for his travel to King Abdulaziz International Airport Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. According to the opposite parties 1 & 2 , the visa was issued on 07/01/2016 and it is valid till 06/02/2016 only. The opposite parties 1 & 2 completely neglected the duration of visa recorded in visa, the duration of visa is recorded as one month from the date of departure. The complainant had a valid visa on 06/02/2016 and it could have expired only on 09/02/2015. The opposite parties 1 & 2 issued flight ticket after verification   of all necessary documents. The complainant’s employer removed the complainant from his aforesaid job. The annual income of the complainant from the aforesaid job alone comes to more than Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) without considering the other perks and allowance received by him from his employer. Moreover it is very difficult to the complainant to get a job of similar nature with same package of benefits. The act of the opposite parties 1& 2 amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.      

 3.        Opposite parties 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed version. The first opposite party has filed version for and on behalf of 2^nd opposite party also. It is averred that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite parties are not aware of the employment details of the complainant, as claimed by the complainant. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are not aware of the period of leave of the complainant nor his monthly salary. It is admitted that complainant reported to the Oman Air Counter on 06/20/2016 and he has reserved ticket for travel in the Oman air Flight to Jeddah, KSA. The counter staff in a bonafide discharge of their duty verified the re-entry visa of the complainant in the Saudi Visa Site and understood that the complainant ought to have returned before 06/02/2016 and hence if the complainant arrived in the flight scheduled to disembark at 0225 on 7^th February, his visa would be expired and the Airline will be subjected to imposition of huge amount as fine for carrying a passenger with invalid documents. Carrying a passenger to an International destination with expired visa will result in fine, penalty and adverse action to the Airline and in view of such circumstances, the complainant was not issued the boarding pass when the complainant failed to produce any valid visa inpite of repeated requests. There is absolutely no deficiency on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2 in denying boarding to the complainant. There is gross negligence on the part of the complainant who had chosen to reserve his ticket for travel on the date of expiry of the visa and on the crucial date of his resuming employment. He ought to have booked his ticket sufficiently early by exercising reasonable diligence especially when he is not a first time traveler. His connecting flight from Muscat to Jeddah ie WY 673 was reaching only at 02.25 a.m.at King Abdul Azeez International Airport and by that time his Visa will be an invalid and expired one as per the information available in the site of Saudi Government.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence complaint may be dismissed.

4.   Issues to be ascertained:

(i). whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite   Parties 1 & 2 ?

(ii). whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

5.  Issues (i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  The complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and has produced 4 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P4.  Complainant was examined as PW1 & was cross-examined by opposite parties 1 &2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed proof affidavit.  The complainant & Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed argument Note.  It is admitted by the opposite parties 1 & 2 that the complainant was not allowed to travel in their airlines due to the reason that the complainant was not having valid visa on 07/02/2016 as and , when he reaches Jeddah. It is argued by the complainant that as per Ext A2 the visa duration is one month from departure date. The complainant has departed from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to India on 10/1/2016 & so the visa is valid till 9/2/2016. But it is also noted in Ext A2 that “Return Before 6/2/2016”. It is also deposed by complainant during cross-examination that “Ext.A2 യിൽ return before 06/02/2016 ന്ന് കാണിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നത് ശരിയാണ്. Ext.A4 ൽ ഞാൻ സൗദിയിൽ എത്തുന്ന സമയം 07/02/2016 രാവിലെ  2.25 AM എന്ന് കാണിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നത് ശരിയാണ്. Ex.A4 book ചെയ്‌തത്  travel agency മുഖാന്തിരമാണ്. Travel agency  എങ്ങനെയാണ്  book ചെയ്തത് എന്ന് എനിക്ക് അറിയില്ല. Travel agency  വഴിയാണ്  book ചെയ്തതെന്ന് എന്ന് പരാതിയിൽ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല. Visa details  ഉം personal details ഉം  ticket book ചെയ്യുന്നതിന് ആവശ്യമില്ല. Passport മാത്രം മതി.” If there is a specific direction in Visa regarding the return date it is be followed. Visa duration is one which is given to the visa holder to renew the visa within that period. It is clearly stated in the Visa that the complainant should return before 6/2/2016. As per Ext A4 it can be seen that the complainant will reach only on 7/2/2016 at Jeddah. So the act of opposite parties 1 & 2 in disallowing the complainant to travel does not amount to deficiency in service.

                In the result the complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost.

                    A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

                  Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 25^th day of April 2023.

 

                                                                                                    Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                        Sd/-

  PREETHA .G.NAIR: MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                                           Sd/-

VIJU.V.R     : MEMBER

 

Be/

APPENDIX

CC.NO.124/2016

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - Jassar Mohammed Kassim

List of Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                   - Copy of the statement of account

Ext.P2                   - Copy of the visa

Ext.P3                   - Copy of the passport

Ext.P4                   - Copy of the flight ticket

List of witness for the opposite parties - NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite parties – NIL

Court Exhibits                                      - NIL

 

                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                                    PRESIDENT