1. This revision petition has been filed by M/s Lufthansa German Airlines against the order dated 30-11-2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short ‘the State Commission’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that in this complaint, the complainant submitted that he purchased tickets from agent of OP M/s Krisbi Travel at Chicago, USA for his journey to India vide itinerary on 29.12.96 from Chicago to Frankfurt and from Frankfurt to Delhi and on 31.01.97 Delhi to Frankfurt. It was further submitted that the only condition imposed on the ticket was that reconfirmation to take place within 72 hours in advance before departure. The complainant travelled on the document/ticket of OP as per schedule and reached Delhi on 30th December, 1997. The complainant as per schedule reached at IGI Airport, Delhi on 31.01.97 to board flight No. LH-761 of OP for Frankfurt and the ultimate destination being Chicago.At IGI Airport the complainant submitted his ticket and travel documents at the checking counter of OP and after checking of the relevant documents it was found in order and the complainant was issued two boarding passes one for his journey from Delhi to Frankfurt and the other from Frankfurt to Chicago.At Frankfurt where the complainant was in transit and scheduled to board flight No. LH-430 of OP was prevented from boarding the aircraft bound to Chicago and on enquiry was informed by the officials of OP that he could not continue his onward journey from Frankfurtto Chicago as he did not have a valid visa. The complainant was compelled to go back to Delhi. The complainant was informed by OP that he would have to travel on a business class ticket since no economy class ticket was available and complainant had no alternative but to purchase a business class ticket for his travel from Frankfurt to Delhi. 3. The complainant filed a consumer complaint and the District Forum vide its order dated 17-05-2002 passed the following order:-- “We thus direct OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.59,980/- i.e. the amount spent by complainant in purchase of a business class ticket from Frankfurt to Delhi and a sum of Rs.18,237/- the cost of ticket purchased by complainant for his travel from Delhi to Frankfurt. While going to Chicago for obtaining the extension of visa at US Embassy in Delhi and a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the mental pain agony, harassment and costs within a period of 30 days of the order. Failing which the amount will carry interest @ 12%.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission which modified the order of District Forum as under:- “7. However, taking in view the contributory negligence of the respondent, we do not feel inclined to set aside the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the District Forum and maintain rest of the order as to the actual expenses incurred by the respondent particularly in view of the fact that the respondent was detained at Frankfurt Airport by Civil Aviation Authorities for checking the documents and on checking the respondent was found without valid documents as the visa had already expired. 8. In the result, we partly allow the appeal by maintaining the direction to pay an amount of Rs.59,880/- spent by the respondent on purchase of a business class ticket from Frankfurt to Delhi and a sum of Rs.18,237/- towards the cost of ticket purchased by the respondent for his travel from Delhi to Frankfurt and award Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation and set aside rest of the order 9. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order”. 5. Hence revision petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused documents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the complainant/respondent was checked by the Civil Aviation Security staff of Germany at Frankfurt and the petitioner airline had no role in this. The only responsibility of the airline was to bring back the passenger if he was not allowed to enter the country of destination. It was also explained that the airline had no intention of harassing the complainant otherwise petitioner would not have issued two boarding passes at Delhi International airport – one from Delhi to Frankfurt and another from Frankfurt to Chicago. The passenger was allowed to perform the journey from Delhi on theassertion of the complainant that his visa was R type J1 visa, which could be renewed after reaching the destination. If the Civil Aviation Security Authorities did not allow the complainant to proceed further to catch the flight from Frankfurt to Chicago, there was no deficiency on the part of the airline. The District Forum in its order dated 17-05-2002 has agreed on this point that airline had to bring back this passenger if he was not allowed to proceed further by the Civil Aviation Security Authorities at Frankfurt. Learned counsel argued that the District Forum has found deficiency on the part of O.P airline that the airline did not wait for the opening of the US Embassy at Frankfurt and for not helping the complainant to get his visa renewed at Frankfurt. The State Commission has also agreed with this deficiency. First of all, the US Embassy was to open at about 10’0 clock which was also the flight time. A person with no proper visa can notbe allowed to be kept even at the airport and he is to be taken back to the originating place at the earliest. As the complainant was not having any visa to go out he could not have gone to the US Embassy in Frankfurt also. It was not within the purview of the petitioner airline to get his visa renewed at the US Embassyat Frankfurt. As all the economy seats were full, the complainant was asked to purchase the business class ticket for his journey from Frankfurt to Delhi. The complainant has asserted in his complaint that while coming from Frankfurt to Delhi, he saw some economy seats vacant but he was given a business class ticket. Learned counsel asserted that no such proof has been filed by the complainant. Hence, mere writing in the complaint cannot be accepted. Infact, the complainant after coming back to Delhi contacted the US Embassy and got his visa renewed on 03-02-1997 and then he flew to US on 04-02-1997. It clearly proves that the complainant was wrong and he was travelling without proper visa. It is not the duty of the airline to verify the visa status and they are only concerned with proper ticketing. Thus for the inconvenience caused to the complainant, he himself was responsible and therefore no deficiency can be attributed to the petitioner airline. 8. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that the petitioner airline should not have boarded the complainant on their flight to Frankfurt if he was not having a proper visa. Once he reached Frankfurt, the petitioner airline should have helped him to get his visa renewed at the US Embassy at Frankfurt. District Forum has rightly observed that the petitioner airline was deficient in not assisting and helping the complainant to renew his visa and perform his onward journey from Frankfurt. Learned counsel argued that both the Fora below have given concurrent finding on the aspect of deficiency of service on the part of petitioner airline and the same cannot be looked into again at the revisional stage. It was further submitted that the complainant was provided two boarding passes at Delhi IGI Airport for his journey from Delhi to Frankfurt and from Frankfurt to Chicago after fully verifying the travelling documents of the complainant and no objection was taken at Delhi Airport regarding the visa of the complainant.It was further stated that the complainant was a resident at Kasas University, Children Centre, Kansas is entitled to 7 years of annual extensions of his visa since his visa was a R type J1 category visa. It was also informed that in such categories of visa, the extension is a mere formality which can be done even upon arrival at United States. When the complainant travelled from Frankfurt to Delhi, it was noticed that several vacant seats in the economy class were there. The learned counsel further stated that no Civil Aviation Security services investigation was done at Frankfurt and the complainant was stopped at Frankfurt airport by the officers of OP. 9. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and have gone through the records. The District Forum has clearly observed that the complainant was detained at Frankfurt Airport by the Civil Aviation Security Services as the complainant was not having valid visa. The observation of District Forum is as follows:-- “As per the submission of OP the complainant was detained at Frankfurt airport by Civil Aviation Security Services for checking the documents and on checking the complainant without valid documents as his visa had already expired and thereby the complainant was sent back to Delhi. So far as the detention of complainant at Frankfurt airport by not holding the valid documents being this visa already expired the contention of OP is genuine and bonafideas the OP was not authorized to go against any government regulatory authorities regarding checking of valid travel documents and there is no deficiency on this count on the part of OP.” 10. I agree with the view that the responsibility to get visa renewed rests with the passport holder. It is not the job of the airline to assist a person in getting visa or renewal of visa and that too on a foreign land. From this aspect, I find that the deficiency attributed to the petitioner airline on this count is not justified. The harassment faced by the complainant at Frankfurt was on account of the fact that he did not have the valid visa for US because his visa had already expired. The complainant’s case is that renewal of visa was only a formality, but it is not clear as to why the complainant could not complete this formality before starting his journey.Thus, no deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite party/petitioner so far as it relates to not allowing the complaint to proceed for onward journey to US from Frankfurt and sending the complainant back from Frankfurt to Delhi. Both the fora below have found the petitioner deficient in service for not assisting the complainant to get his visa renewed at US Embassy at Frankfurt. As the petitioner Airlines was not responsible for this, no deficiency of service can be attributed to opposite party/petitioner Airlines for the same. However, the petitioner-Airlines cannot deny that they were not at all responsible to check the travel documents at the time of issuing the boarding pass. Had the deficiency in Visa been observed by the petitioner at the time of issuing the boarding pass, the passenger would have been refused to travel at Delhi itself, but the Airlines chose to fly the passenger. Though, the complainant in this case was more than responsible for his agony and return from Frankfurt to Delhi on account of absence of a valid visa, the Airlines also has been negligent to some extent in allowing his journey from Delhi itself. For this deficiency, the petitioner must pay some compensation to the complainant. In the circumstances of the case, a compensation of Rs.30,000/- seems reasonable and appropriate. 11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed and the petitioner/opposite party is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) to the complainant. The order dated 30.11.2007 of the State Commission and order dated 17.05.2002 of the District Forum are set aside. This order may be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, interest @ 8% shall be payable by the petitioner from the date of this order till the date of actual payment. No order as to costs. | 
