IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.227/2018
Noushad S., 47 years,
S/o Salahudeen, Kayavil House,
Umayanalloor P.O., Kollam. : Complainant
(By Adv.Kottiyam N.Ajithkumar)
V/s
The Manager, JETAIRWAYS,
Ground Floor, Siroya Centre,
Sahar Airport Road, Andheri East,
Mumbai Pin 400 099. : Opposite party
(By Adv.Dheeraj Ravi)
ORDER
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
Complainant had booked two online tickets at the JET AIRWAYS on 10.11.2017 for his sisters Mrs.Shahida Beevi Thaha and Mrs.Majida Abdul Sathar for travelling on 20th November 2017. Ticket No.is PNR No.GEPWIZ E Ticket 5892130875598, 5892130875599 and the ticket is booked for travelling from Thiruvananthapuram to Dhoha. The purpose of the travel was to help and give assistance for the wife of the complainant in her delivery. The said sisters of the complainant reached at the Thiruvananthapuram Airport very early with availed tickets and contacted Mr.Jobson, the representative of the opposite party. After verifying the ticket and other travel documents, Mr.Jobson told them that the body pass cannot be given. Even though the sisters of the complainant attempted to contact the officials of the opposite party they didn’t get access to the site of the opposite party. By this time the flight took off and the sisters of the complainant were unable to travel. Even though the return tickets were also booked through Safiya Travels and the tickets were confirmed tickets. Due to the very said act of the opposite party the complainant lost Rs.20,550/- towards tickets charge. Since the complainant was unable to bring his relatives to assist his wife he had to avail the help of other servants for looking after his wife in connection with the delivery. The complainant had submitted complaints before the opposite party but no action has been taken to redress the grievance of the complainant. The complainant had caused to issue a lawyer notice requesting the opposite party to compensate the complainant. In answer to the said notice, the opposite party issue a baseless reply notice denying the lawful claim of the complainant.
The complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.20,550/-towards tickets charge. Apart from the said loss the complainant and the passengers had suffered mental agony which cannot be equated in terms of money, but for legal purposes, it is fixed to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party represented through the authorized signatory of the company and had filed detailed version through the counsel resisting the averments in the complaint and further contends that the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum and not approached with clean hands. The complainant is trying to mislead the Hon’ble Forum by presenting the concocted story and fake claims; hence, the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on this ground. It is further contended by the opposite party their firm is Country’s premier international airline, offering the finest experiences across the sky and the opposite party has gained exceptional market reputation and goodwill for its standards of service and reliability, efficient operations and focus on innovation. The complainant had filed a totally false, frivolous and vexatious case with malafide intentions of causing harassment to
opposite party. The averments made in the complaint is only to defame opposite party and extorting money in illegal manner and instant complaint filed by the complainant is liable to dismissed in contravention of the Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which states that for the jurisdiction of the complaint either of the opposite party or opposite party severally or jointly resides or carries on business or cause of action of the complaint wholly or in part arises. Opposite party further contends that in the present case no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum herein. It is specifically contended that the place of residence of the complainant and booking the ticket at Kollam does not invoke the jurisdiction of the present court. The complainant’s itinerary featured his flight from Thiruvananthapuram to Doha and the cause of action, if any, arose at the airport at Thriuvananthapuram and not at Kollam. Moreover as admitted by the complainant and one-way tickets annexed with the complaint, it is in the name of his sisters namely Mrs.Shahida Beevi Thaha and Mrs.Majida Abdul Sathar who were supposed to travel through opposite party airlines and not the complainant himself. So the complainant has not availed any alleged service from opposite party and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed at the very outset due to no jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. The complainant has not produced any material evidence to substantiate the frivolous allegations levelled against the opposite party. It is very pertinent to bring on record the material fact that as per the relevant Visa rules applicable on Indian Citizens travelling to Qatar, Indian citizens does not require prior visa arrangement and can obtain visa waiver upon their arrival at Qatar which shall be valid for a period of 30(Thirty) days from date of issuance only upon presentation of a valid passport with a minimum validity of six months and a CONFIRMED ONWARD OR RETURN TICKET and when the complainant’s sisters arrived at check-in counter of opposite party they did not
possess the return ticket from Doha due to which the boarding pass was not issued to them. It is further contended by the opposite party that their staff had duly apprised the complainant’s sisters the reason for not issuing the boarding pass after which they tried to book the return tickets and they were unable to produce the same to the opposite party till the check-in counter closure time and they have admitted in the complaint the return ticket booked at the last minute was also cancelled and the refund was also issued to the complainant’ sisters and they were marked as “NO SHOW”. The complainant sisters exited the terminal and exit register which is maintained by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at the Airport Terminals also bears the remark “NO RETURN TICKET” . The complainant had not approached this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and has concealed the materials facts by not annexing the alleged return tickets from Doha to Thiruvananthapuram and presenting concocted stories which clearly established the malafide intentions of the complainant in filing the present complaint and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is further contended by the opposite party that the International flights the check in counter closes 60 minutes before the flight departure time and opposite party is bound to adhere to the same in order to avoid delays and to achieve its departure and arrival timelines. Therefore the complainant’s sisters missed their said flight due to their own fault for not possessing the valid travel documents. It is further contended that it is unequivocally and clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions available on the website of opposite party that the responsibility to ensure the correctness of all travel documentation including valid Indian Resident Permit, Passport, Travel Tickets and Visa rests completely on the passenger/complainant and opposite party cannot be held responsible for damages arising out of incomplete or improper travel documentation on the part of the passenger/complainant. It is expressly mentioned in general terms and conditions available on the official
website of opposite party, holding valid travel documents and visa is the sole responsibility of the passengers and Jet Airways is in no way responsible or liable when such passengers are deported from a foreign country on account of their holding invalid or incorrect travel documents and Jet Airways reserves the right to deny boarding to any guest under the influence of alcohol or drugs, for health, safety or security reasons; or in the absence of adequate travel documents and no compensation as referred to above shall be payable in such cases.
In the present case the complainant’s sisters were not travelling with the return airlines ticket from Doha, Qatar and that amounts to non-compliance of visa requirements mentioned by State of Qatar and opposite party was justified in denying boarding to the complainant’s sister on the said flight and therefore the complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed by him against the opposite party.
The opposite party further contended that the complainant is not a consumer as per definition under section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, as mentioned in the complaint as per the copy of the tickets produced the complainant has not availed the services of opposite party and the one way ticket from Thiruvananthapuram to Doha, Qatar was issued in the name of Mrs.Shahida Beevi Thaha and Mrs.Majida Abdul Sathar and not in the name of the complainant. There is no such alleged transactions that took place between the complainant and the opposite party and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party and therefore the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs claimed.
In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the refund for Rs.20,550/- from the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation?
- Reliefs and costs?
No oral evidence has been adduced on the part of the complainant and opposite party. But both of them produced documentary evidence. Ext.P1 to P5 were got marked on the side of the complainant as Ext.D1 to D6 were marked on the side of the opposite party.
Complainant and opposite party filed notes of argument. Heard the counsel for the opposite party. Complainant failed to advance any argument though sufficient opportunity was granted.
Point No.1 to 3
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these three points are considered together. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant on 10.11.2017 booked Ext.P1 online tickets for his sisters Mrs.Shahida Beevi Thaha and Mrs.Majitha Abdul Sathar for their journey on 20.11.2017 from Thiruvananthapuram to Doha for the purpose of helping and giving assistance for the wife of the complainant, during her delivery. It is also an admitted fact that on 20th November, 2017 the said Mrs.Shahida Beevi Thaha and Mrs.Majida Abdul Sathar arrived at Thiruvananthapuram Airport very early and had contacted the representatives of the opposite party. But after verifying the ticket and other travel documents Mr.Jobson, the representative of opposite party did not issue boarding pass and told that boarding pass cannot be given. The passengers had made several attempts to contact the officials of the opposite party through internet but they did not get access to the site of the opposite party. In the meanwhile the flight took off and the sisters of the complainant were miserably unable to travel. According to the complainant return tickets were booked through Safiya travels and the same were confirmed tickets but due to the act of the opposite party the complainant has sustained the loss of Rs.20,550/-. According to the opposite party the sisters of the complainant were not possessing valid travel documents and hence the issuance of boarding pass was denied.
Now it is to be considered whether the two sisters of the complainant were having valid travel document when they arrived at the checking point. There is also no much dispute with regard to the fact that passenger have to possess valid documents including return tickets for the air travel to Doha. But according to the complainant the passengers who are his two sisters were having valid and confirmed return tickets. Ext.P5 is the alleged return ticket but the same was not produced along with the complaint. According to the opposite party the passengers were not having Ext.P5 when the came over at the check in counter and have they were in allowed to travel and their after the complainant booked the return ticket but by the time the plane left the airport and hence it is the fault of the passengers that they could not travel. The learned counsel for the opposite party has pointed out during argument that this fact is noted in Ext.D4 exit register maintained by the CISF at the Thiruvananthapuram airport. I tis further to be pointed out that the opposite party at the very outset ie. in Ext.D6 final reply notice dated 27.04.2018 has stated that the sisters of the complainant when they arrived at the check in point were not in possession of the return ticket due to which the boarding pass was denied to them. Though this fact was stated in Ext.D65, much prior to the filing of the complaint, the complainant has not specifically denied the said fact and asserted in the complaint that his sisters were in possession of return tickets. Instead it is stated in para 2 of the complaint that even though the passengers had tried to convince the said Jobson that they are having valid tickets but not seen stated that they are possessing valid return tickets also which is admittedly a requirement for air travel to Doha. However towards the end of the 2nd para, it is seen averred in the complaint that return tickets were also “booked through Safiya travels and the tickets were confirmed tickets”. On perusal of Ext.P5 copy of e-ticket it is seen that it was issued on 20.11.2017 which is the date of travel to Doha from Thiruvananthapuram. At what time it was booked is not stated in Ext.P5. Neither the complainant nor any one of the passengers has mounted the box and sworn that Ext.P5 was already purchased before they appeared at the check in point and they were having in their possession and shown the said return tickets in the check in counter. The possibility of purchasing Ext.P5 return ticket before they arrived at the check in point is remote as the departure time as per Ext.P1 air ticket is 10.40 a.m on 20.11.2017 and the passengers have to appear at the check in point atleast two hours prior to the departure time.
The relevant Visa rules applicable on Indian Citizens travelling to Qatar, Indian Citizens does not require prior visa arrangements and can obtain visa waiver upon their arrival at Qatar which shall be valid for a period of 30(Thirty) days from the date of issuance only upon presentation of a valid passport with a minimum validity of six months and a CONFIRMED ONWARD OR RETURN TICKET. It is clear from the available materials produced by the opposite party that the staff of opposite party duly appraised the complainant’s sisters the reason for not issuing the boarding pass however the passengers were unable to produce the boarding pass to the opposite party before the closure time of checking.
In view of the materials discussed above and in view of the lack of specific pleadings and evidence to the effect that the passengers were possessing all valid travel documents as stipulated in Ext.D3 and Ext.D5 documents when they appeared at the check in point nor they could be able to produce the return ticket before closing the check in counter 60 minutes prior to the time fixed for flight departure. In the circumstances we are inclined to hold that since the sisters of the complainant were not having valid return ticket which is a requirement for travel to Doha the issuance of boarding pass was denied. In the circumstances no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice can be inferred on the part of the opposite party Jet Airways. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get any refund of the air ticket charge as claimed in the complaint. The point answered accordingly.
Point No.4
On evaluating the entire materials available on record we find no merit in the complaint and hence the complaint is only to be dismissed.
In the result complaint stands dismissed.
No costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 30th day of September 2022.
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 : Online tickets
Ext.P2 : Advocate notice dated 24.02.2018
Ext.P3 : postal receipt dated 24.02.2018
Ext.P4 : Legal Notice dated 06.03.2018
Ext.P5 : Copy of Return tickets
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite party:-
Ext.D1 : Copy of Supreme Court judgment
Ext.D2 : Copy of Delhi High Court judgment
Ext.D3 : Copy of Visa requirement
Ext.D4 : Copy of Exit register
Ext.D5 : Copy of the General Terms and Conditions on the website of opposite party
