Date of filing : 04-02-2012
Date of order : 22-07-2016
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRE SSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.25/2012
Dated this, the 22nd day of July 2016
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Suhara Achumanatakath, Raziya Manzil, : Complainant
Mogral Puthur, Po.Kallangai,
Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv.E.Sukumaran, Hosdurg)
1 The Airport Director, Airport Authority of India, : Opposite parties
Calicut International Airport, Karipur,
Calicut Airport.Po. Malappuram.Dist.
(Adv.P.G.Mathew, Manjeri)
2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Immigration Wing
Calicut International Airport, Karipur,
Calicut Airport.Po. Malappuram.Dist.
(Addl.Govt.Pleader, Kasaragod)
3 The Terminal Duty Manager, Emirate Airline
Calicut International Airport, Karipur,
Calicut Airport.Po. Malappuram.Dist.
(Ivan D’souza& Shivram Alva, Mangalore)
4 The Immigration Officer,
Calicut International Airport, Karipur,
Calicut Airport.Po. Malappuram.Dist.
5 The Customs Officer,
Calicut International Airport, Karipur,
Calicut Airport.Po. Malappuram.Dist.
6 The Manager, Maulavi Travels, Kasaragod,
Po.Kasaragod, Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv. Manikanthan Nambiar.K, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER
The gist of the complainant’s case is that Raziya the daughter of the complainant is residing at Dubai and in the month of June 2011she was under going treatment and the said Raziya requested the complainant to attend her till she relieved from illness and accordingly the complainant purchased to and fro flight ticket from the opposite party No.6 at Kasaragod and arranged all travel documents. On 8-6-2011the complainant went first opposite party i.e. Calicut International Air port to go to Dubai and after confirmation she was allowed to enter inside the airport to do the emigration formalities before boarding the flight of opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 verified the passport, visa and other travel documents of the complainant and the officer concerned scan complainant’s luggage and issued boarding pass. Thereafter one of the staff of opposite party No.4 collected back the boarding pass and asked the complainant to meet opposite party No.5. Opposite party No.5 checked the travel documents and informed her that she can’t go. For a long time the opposite parties harassed the complainant both mentally and physically. The complainant was off loaded from the flight and she came back to her native place by train after waiting for a long time. The complainant was totally exhausted due to all these and she was taken to hospital and treated from there. In the mean while the complainant’s brother-in-law arranged a ticket in Air India flight and reached Dubai safely through Mangalore Air port. There was no problem or harassment from Mangalore Airport as compared to Calicut International Airport. All the travel documents produced by the complainant before the Calicut Air port authorities are perfectly well and valid. The complainant had to suffer mentally and physically due to the act of the opposite party. Hence the complaint.
2. Opposite party No.1 filed version stating that normally passengers are not required to meet the first opposite party while travelling abroad. It is not correct that the complainant contacted opposite party No.1. The passengers are the customers who are handling by the concerned airlines. Immigration department and customs department are separate government agencies working In the airport as such first opposite party cannot command on the actions of the 4th and 5th opposite parties. i.e. Immigration Officer and Customs Officers. Opposite party No.1 was not a party to harass the complainant there is no harassment from the side of 1st Opposite party and therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the 1st Opposite party.
3. Opposite party No.2 filed version and opposed all the allegations leveled against them. Opposite party No.2 contended that on verification of the passport of the complainant is having immigration check required ECR status. Since she was not having any valid travel documents she was off loaded by the counter officer Sri.C.Baburaj with an instruction to obtain original visit visa for travelling to Dubai, which is an ECR country. The instructions by the bureau of immigration, India, Ministry of Home Affairs for the Indian passengers travelling abroad is to have a valid travel authority for the destination country. The travel authority is normally in the form of visa which is obtained prior to the journey. A passenger going to an ECR country for Dubai should produce genuine documents to prove that family member is residing there and the visa was sponsored by him or her. The complainant herein stated that she was going to join her daughter Raziya but the complainant not having original visit visa to prove that her daughter Raziya was residing in Dubai hence she was off loaded with an advice to come with the original visa. The Immigration Departments performs purely statutory functions they are bound to follow the Acts, Rules and instructions not only in the case of the complainant but in the case of every passenger. Hence there is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party No.2.
4. Opposite party No.3 contended that the complainant was stopped from travelling by the Immigration and customs authority for want of official formalities which is an act of Government and there is nothing that the airlines can do. This opposite party had been dragged into the litigation for no reason just because the complainant was booked on the carrier of the opposite party from Calicut to Dubai. And there is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite party No.3 because the reason for not permitting her are best known to the Immigration Authorities and the Customs. No reason were given but the complainant was ordered to be off loaded. This opposite party No.3 was not aware about the further allegations in the complaint. Any action against the detainment or refusal to allow any body for the flight lies entirely with the Immigration Department and or customs alone can answer.
5. Opposite party No.5 filed version by disputing all the averments in the complaint and contended that they have no occasion at any point of time to interact with the complainant. Any passenger departing to abroad will reach the customs counter only after clearance by the Immigration authority. On the carefully reading of the complaint reveals that the complainant had not been cleared the Immigration formalities and therefore she did not reach the customs departure counter. Because any passenger who has not cleared Immigration formalities as a routine procedure shall not attend and reports the customs counter. In this case the Immigration formalities has not been properly completed hence reporting before the customs counter does not arise. The complaint herein is not entitled for any relief from opposite party No.5 since this opposite party had nothing to do with the present case. There is no deficiency from their side.
6. Opposite party No.6 contending that there is no customer service provision relationship alleged in the complaint opposite party No.6 is an unnecessary party and there is no relief claimed against them, they only booked a travel ticket for the complainant. There is no deficiency from their part.
7. The following points arose for consideration:
1 Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of the opposite
parties?
2 If so, what is the relief and costs?
The specific case of the complainant was that on 8-6-2011 while she was going to Dubai from Calicut International Airport she was offloaded by the opposite parties and thereby her journey was interrupted and hence she filed the above case. All the above opposite parties filed their detailed versions by contesting the case. Opposite parties 2 & 4 are the relevant parties who offloaded the PW1. The complainant’s passport is having Emigration check required (ECR) status. On verification of her travelling documents at immigration, it was not having genuine documents to show that she was going to visit or join with her family at abroad. Since she was not having valid travel documents, she was offloaded by the counter officer with an instruction to obtain the original visit visa. PW1 in her cross examination admitted that she was having only fair copy of the visa and further deposed that her daughter is working under a sponsor but no documents filed by the complainant before the Forum to prove that aspects. Now a days extra vigilance is to be taken on lady passengers with the ECR status to ensure that her family member is at abroad who will look after her on arrival. The opposite party No.2 purely performed their statutory function. For clearing a passenger the immigration officer strictly follow the immigration Act and Rules. Besides there are several standing instructions issued from time to time for guiding the clearance of passengers especially about the women passengers to be ECR countries when such passenger travel alone. Such passenger must produce genuine document to prove that the said family member is residing in that country and the visa has been sponsored by him/her. The immigration department is bound to follow the Acts and Rules. There is absolutely no evidence before the Forum to come to a conclusion that there is a deficiency in service from the side of any of the opposite parties in this case. The opposite party No.2 is the person who offloaded the complainant. But they only acted to according to law and enforced the immigration rules. Opposite party No.2 further contended that there is no opposite parties as given in the complaint as opposite party No.4. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief as she prayed. Since there is no merit in the complaint the same is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
A1. Series Prescriptions and Lab reports
A2. Copy of Electronic ticket receipt
A3. Itinerary Receipt
A4. Train ticket
A5. Train ticket
A6. Itinerary report.
A7. 24-09-2011 Copy of lawyer notice.
A8. Postal receipts
A9.( a to d) series Reply notices.
A9.(e) reply notice.
A10 Letter sent by A.Venugopal to E.Sukumaran
A11. Copy of passport of Suhara
A.12 Copy of tourist visa
A13. Copy of identity card of complainant.
PW1.Suhara.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
