CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC No. 246/2008 Friday, the 21st day of May, 2010 Petitioner : Varghese John, Pattasseril Puhenpurayil, Pulikalkavala P.O Kottayam. (By Adv. Boby George Kurian) Opposite parties : 1) Srilankan Airlines Ltd., Vijaya Towers, No. 4, Kodambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam Chennai, Tamilnadu. (By Adv. Anil D. Kartha) 2) Concord Tours & Travels, GS Road, Manorama Junction, Kottayam Reptd. By its Proprietor. (By Adv. Sony Sebastian) O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath. P., President Petitioner booked a ticket with the first opposite party through the second opposite party, who is an authorized agent of the first opposite party, on 8..5..2008. The ticket is for his journey from Kochi to Frankfurt on 31..5..2008. As per the flight schedule issued by the second opposite party along with the ticket. Flight was from Kochi to Colombo and from there to Frankfurt. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 31460/- as ticket charges. As per the schedule complainant boarded the plane from Kochi airport after immigration clearance and reached Colombo airport on 31..5..2008.At Colombo airport one of the -2- employees of the first opposite party examined complainants passport and declared that it is suspicious documents. When the complainant sought for an explanation an employee named Sajith demanded a bribe of 200 Euros as clearance. Petitioner refused to do so and he was deported to Kochi on the basis of the proceedings initiated by the employees of the first opposite party. Petitioner was made to wait Kochi airport for more than 6 hours and he was treated like a criminal by the employees of the first opposite party. His luggage reached back Kochi only 2 days later. Subsequently petitioner went to Germany on 4..6..2008 by Lufthansa flight. The cost of the ticket for the flight was Rs. 42215/-. According to the petitioner this shows there was no defect or suspicion regarding his passport or other documents. According to the petitioner’s journey on 31..5..2008 was prevented only because of the unprofessional greed and callous irresponsible conduct on part of the employees of 1st opposite party. Petitioner was going to Germany to consult with his doctor there. He fixed appointment with his doctor on 2..6..2008. This caused considerable mental strain to the petitioner. On 30..6..2008 petitioner issued a lawyers notice to the opposite party demanding compensation. First opposite party issued a reply giving an apology but no payment has been forthcoming till date. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. Petitioner states that opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of Rs. 31,460/-, which is ticket fare, paid to the first opposite party. First opposite party is also liable to pay taxi charges Rs. 2,500/- for collecting his luggage. Opposite parties are also -3- liable to pay an amount of Rs. 10,755/- which is the additional amount the complainant had to pay for the Lufthansa ticket. Petitioner claims Rs. 50,000/- compensation for mental agony and another 50,000/- as monitory loss and cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the first opposite party act of deportation of the complainant is not a consumer dispute. Moreover it is the duty of petitioner to comply with the Government rules and regulations, requirement in relation to entry of the country concern and the petitioner will not be allowed to travel in case he has not fulfill the requirement and if his travel documents are not in order. First opposite party admitted that at Colombo airport one of the employees of first opposite party examined the petitioner’s passport and found the same to be a suspicious documents. First opposite party denied the allegation of demanded of bribe of 200 Euros for clearance. According to the first opposite party if the passenger stayed outside Germany for more than 6 months, then he has to get special entry permit to Germany. According to the first opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Second opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the second opposite party, petitioner has no cause of action as against the second opposite party. Admittedly the alleged cause of action arose at Colombo airport in Sri Lanka which is beyond -4- the jurisdiction of the Forum. The complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act. The second opposite party is an IATA approved agent and as such second opposite party can issue tickets for all airlines which are members of IATA. All amounts received by the 2nd opposite party are remitted to IATA-BSP India at Mumbai which is an airline body constituted to collect payments from all IATA agents and there after they settle it with the respective airlines. After issuance of the ticket complainant never contacted the second opposite party nor any notice as alleged was served on the second opposite party. Second opposite party is not aware of any alleged deportation of the complainant from the Colombo airport or of his subsequent travel. According to the second opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is maintainable or not? ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? iii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A10 documents and on the side of the petitioner. Point No. 1 According to the opposite party petition is not maintainable and there is no consumer disputes to be adjudicated because there is no cause of action. -5- Petitioner alleged that the cause of action arose on 8..5..2008, 31..5..2008 and on 30..6..2008. Opposite party contented that there is no significance for this dates. The significant of date 8..5..2008 was that it was on that day complainant booked the ticket. Counsel for the first opposite party vehemently argued that no were in the complaint he has a case that there was any defect or deficiency in the ticket or in the issuance of the ticket. 31..5..2008 was the date on which the petitioner was deported. Opposite party argued that since admittedly it was done at Colombo, in Sri Lanka. Even assuming for argument sake that there was any irregularity, that should have to be dealt with in accordance with the law prevailing in Sri Lanka . At a place where the Consumer Protection Act is not in operation. Article 20 of the Indian Constitution mandates that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence. Opposite party also argued that the date 30..6..2008 is the date of the Lawyers notice, which also can not be treated as a cause of action for the complaint. We disagree with the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the first opposite party. Admittedly the air ticket was purchased on 8..5..2008 from the first opposite party. Cause of action means bundle of facts and actions which constitute the cause for the case. As per section 11 (ii )of the Consumer Protection Act territorial jurisdiction of the For a is within the local limits of whose jurisdiction. Opposite parties or any of the opposite parties voluntarily resides or carries on business or has branch office or personally works for grain. Here the first opposite party carries on business -6- within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In our view by purchase of a ticket and not ending the journey in the destination in such cases by purchase of the ticket itself the cause of action will arose. So, in our view the petition is maintainable and point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In order to determine whether there is any deficiency in service question to be decided is that whether deportation was done legally. First opposite party argued that deportation was done by the airport authorities as on sound reasons. According to the opposite party the stay permit of the petitioner seen expired as the petitioner had out stayed Germany for more than six months. Petitioner left Germany on 27..8..2007 and did not re-enter till 21..8..2008 and as per German residence law, a residence permit expires upon exist from Germany and if not reentered within 6 months. So, according to the opposite party deportation is legally done. Petitioners counsel argued that the deportation is not done legally because petitioner went to Germany on 4..6..2008 by Lufthansa flight. The invoice issued by the United Tours and Travels for the ticket Dtd: 3..6..2008 is produced and same is marked as Ext. A7. The electronic ticket is also produced and marked as Ext. A8. Copy of the passport of the petitioner is produced and the same is marked as Ext. A1. From Ext. A1 it can be seen that petitioner entered Germany in the same passport and other documents by Lufthansa flight while within a week. Even though the opposite party has a definite case that the deportation was done in compliance with government rules and regulations first -7- opposite party had mentioned some document in there counter affidavit to prove the same but nothing has been produced on records to prove the same. The reply to the lawyers notice sent by the first opposite party has produced and same is marked as Ext. A10. In Ext. A10 first opposite party apologies for the inconvenience caused to the petitioner and offered a detailed investigation. They further assured that they will communicate with the petitioner with regard to the reports concerning investigation as soon as they received it. But no investigation report has been communicated so far with regard to the investigation. In our view act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. Petitioner produced a copy of the Lufthansa Flight ticket. It can be seen that petitioner had spent an additional amount of Rs. 10,755/- for his journey. So point No. 2 is found accordingly. Point No. 3. In view of finding in point No. 1. Petition is allowed and petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. In the result, first opposite party is ordered to refund the petitioner ticket charge of Rs. 31,460/-. First opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 10,755/- being additional amount paid by the petitioner in his second air ticket. In our view without saying what had happened caused much inconvenience and mental harassment to the petitioner. So, view allowing an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the loss and sufferings is reasonable. First opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the -8- proceedings. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of this order. If it is not complied as ordered the award amount will carrying 9 % till realization. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of May, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the Petitioner Ext. A1: Copy of the passport No. 124071. Ext. A2: Copy of the certificate translation of the passport Ext. A3: Bill No. 011819 Dt: 31..5..2008 Ext. A4: Receipt No. 007089 Ext. A5: Electronic ticket dt: 8..5..2008 Ext. A6: Copy of Deportation letter. Ext. A7: Invoice Dtd: 3..6..2008 of United Tours and Travels. Ext. A8: Electronic Ticket Dt: 3..6..2008 Ext. A9: Lawyers notice issued by the petitioner Dtd: Nil. Ext. A10: Reply notice. By Order, Senior Supeprintendent amp/ 5 cs.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
