DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 02.06.2020
CC/55/2020
Baiju Cyriac
S/o P.M.Cyriac, Palakkal House
Ponkandam, Olimkadave (P.O)
Alathur Taluk, Palakkad Dist.
Represented by Power of attorney Holder
Dominic Abraham
S/o Abraham, Malipurath House
Kannamkulam, Moolamkodu
Kizhakkanchery (P.O), Alathur Taluk
Palakkad Dist. - Complainant
(By Adv. Shibu Shamsudeen)
V/s
Proprietor
M/s. World Link Air Travels
Thuruthikara Arcade, Opp. Police Station
Main Road, Vadakkanchery (P.O)
Alathur Taluk, Palakkad Dist. - Opposite parties
(By Adv. Sujeesh K)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
Complainant is a nurse working in Israel and the opposite party is running business of Air Travel Agency. He is represented by Power of attorney Holder, his father-in-law. On 10/02/2020, Power of attorney Holder booked the ticket for the complainant for travelling to Cochin and return through the opposite party agency. As per ticket, the travelling was to Tel-Aviv to Turkey Isthambool by Pegasus Airlines, then Isthambool to Doha and Doha to Cochin by ‘Qatar Airways’. The opposite party collected Rs. 56,621/- as ticket charge.
Complainant travelled from Tel-Aviv to Turkey Isthambool by Pegasus Airlines and the flight landed in SAW airport of Isthambool; but the Qatar Airways connection flight to Doha was arranged in another airport namely IST international airport which is 60 KM away from this airport. Even though the complainant tried to go to that airport, he could not exit from there as he had no transit visa. He contacted the Qatar Airways Authorities and they informed him that there is some mistake in his ticket and they cannot do anything. The complainant’s father-in-law contacted the opposite parties; but there was no positive response from their part and he was forced to take new ticket from SAW Airport at Isthambool to Doha and Doha to Cochin and paid Rs. 44,625/- as the new ticket charge. The opposite party assured that the 1st ticket can be cancelled and they will arrange for reimbursement of ticket amount. The complainant had to spend 8 hrs in airport without food & water and had undergone mental agony. On 19/02/2020, he reached Cochin, but his luggage was missing and he got it on the next day. For collecting the luggage he had to travel from his place to Airport causing an expense of Rs. 4,000/-
When he approached the opposite party for the refund of the amount, he was informed that Qatar Airways is not refunding the amount. Further they informed that due to the change of 1st ticket, the return ticket also got cancelled and he had to take new ticket and he took ticket by Air India for Rs. 35,435/-
All these happened because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties should have issued proper connection flight ticket; instead of that they issued wrong ticket. The complainant issued lawyer notice to the opposite parties on 02/05/2020 for which they send a reply stating untenable contentions.
The complainant approached this Commission for obtaining an order directing the opposite party to refund the ticket charges (Rs.56,621 + Rs.35,435) and travelling charge for taking luggage amounting to Rs.4,000/- and 5 lakh for mental agony caused due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. (Total amount claimed is 5 lakhs ninety eight thousand with cost.)
2. After admitting complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
3. Opposite party in their version contended that Power of attorney holder of the complainant is not aware of the incidents described in the complaint. They are the sub agents of Multilink online services and tickets are booked through the online portal of their principal agent, multilink. They admit that the complainant’s father-in-law approached them for booking ticket on 10/02/2020. Opposite party informed him that there is direct flight from Tel-Aviv (Israel) to Cochin by Air India, but the complainant insisted to book ticket in Qatar Airways. The tickets from Tel-Aviv to Turkey Isthambul, Isthambul to Doha and Doha to Cochin was booked as per their demand and they paid Rs. 56,621/- as ticket charge. These tickets and return ticket are with the same PNR number. The ticket was booked on February 10th and travel was on 18th; it is the complainant’s responsibility to understand the details of the travel and he had enough time for that.
The complainant reached the SAW Airport at Isthambul on 18/02/2020 8:45 AM and he did not raise any complaint about the ticket till 15 minutes prior to the departure of the flight to Doha Airport. When the opposite party got a call, they contacted Qatar Airways through their principal agent. The complainant did not take any effort to contact Qatar Airways authorities or to get transit visa. When they contacted the complainant through telephone when he was in SAW Airport as per the complainant’s father-in-law’s request, he handed over the phone to some person of Qatar Airways. They informed that “he is too late and his ticket will be scheduled for the next flight”. The opposite party asked the complainant to get the reason for denial of his boarding from the authorities; but instead of that he asked the opposite party to book a new ticket.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. When they came to know about complainant’s situation from his father-in-law, they immediately contacted their principal agent and informed the same to Qatar Airways.
The Qatar Airways authorities informed that he missed the flight due to late reporting and they will accommodate him in the next flight. If transit visa is required, that will be printed in ticket; but in the ticket nothing was mentioned about it. If there is any dispute with regard to that, legal action should be initiated against Qatar Airways.
As per complainant and his father-in-law’s request, the opposite party booked a new ticket from Akbar travel’s online portal for travelling from Pendik Istambul to Doha, Doha to Cochin and the complainant paid only Rs.30,000/- out of the ticket charge of Rs. 49,652/-
His baggage was kept in the category of ‘Untaken’ In the SAW airport and reached the Cochin airport on the very next day. The opposite party send mail to their principal agent for refund of the ticket amount; but as per the norms of Qatar Airways since the complainant had not used the Isthambul to Doha, Doha to Cochin tickets and completed the travel, they did not consider him as a traveller and they cannot reimburse the amount and the complainant cannot use that return ticket.
The opposite party is only a travel agent for booking ticket. Qatar Airways Company has to inform about the things related to transit visa. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration:
- Whether the missing of connection flight was due to complainant’s mistake?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs?
- Reliefs if any as cost & compensation.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A5 marked in the part of complainant (A4 is series). A1 to A3 is objected on the ground that they are photocopies and is unaccompanied by S.65 B certification under Evidence Act. Later, complainant filed S.65 B certificate and documents are taken in evidence. Opposite party filed proof affidavit and Exhibits B1 to B3 were marked. Marking of B1 to B3 is objected on the ground that they are photocopies. As we are not bound by Evidence Act, the documents are admissible unless the other party has a case that it is forged or fabricated. So objection overruled.
6. Point No: 1
Complaint pleadings are to the effect that complainant’s father-in-law, the power of attorney holder of complainant in this case, approached opposite party travel agency to book ticket for the complainant for travel to his native place. Opposite party booked the ticket on 10/02/2020 and as per the ticket, the travelling was from Tel-Aviv to Turkey Isthambul by Pegasus Airlines, then Isthambul to Doha and Doha to Cochin by Qatar Airways.
7. The complainant boarded from Tel-Aviv to Turkey Isthambul and the flight landed in SAW airport at Isthambul, but the Qatar Airways connection flight to Doha was from another airport namely IST international airport which is 60kms away from SAW airport. Since the complainant did not have transit visa, he could not travel to that airport and missed the connection flight. When contacted, the Qatar Airways authorities informed him that there is some mistake in the ticket and they cannot do anything. So he booked another ticket by spending an amount of Rs. 44,625/-
8. Opposite party admitted that they booked the ticket as mentioned in the complaint as per complainant’s request eventhough there was direct flight from Tel-Aviv to Cochin.
Opposite party, World Link Air Travels is a sub agent of Multilink online services. The tickets are booked through the online portal of their principal agent. The opposite party is not aware of the transit visa for travelling to another airport to get the connection flight. The complainant contacted the opposite party from Isthambul SAW Airport 15-20 minutes before the departure of the flight and they contacted Qatar Airways through their principal agent. The opposite party was informed that “he is too late” and they will arrange his travel in the next flight. If any transit visa is needed, it is the duty of the airways to arrange for that.
9. The complainant produced the printout of the ticket which is marked as Ext. A1. Ext. A1 clearly shows the time of departure and arrival of flights and the destinations. Flight-1 from Tel-Aviv to Isthambul (SAW) Flight-2 from Isthambul (IST) to Doha, Flight-3 from Doha to Cochin and 4th is return ticket from Cochin to Doha. 1st Fight is Continental Airways and all other connection flight and return is by Qatar Airways. The same PNR number RSB77F is provided for the to and fro journey.
Eventhough complainant alleges that he could not travel due to the mistake in the ticket; he did not adduce any evidence to prove his case. He did not get any written reason as to why he could not travel from airport authorities or Qatar Airways as to why he could not travel. Further the ticket was booked by the opposite party on 10/02/2020 and his travel was on 18/02/2020. So he had enough time to check the ticket and do the necessary arrangements by contacting the opposite party or directly contacting the airways. But he did not do anything. On 18/02/2020, he reached the Isthambul SAW airport at 08:45 AM as per 1st ticket. His next flight from Isthambul IST was scheduled at 01:35 PM. So there was a gap of more than 4 hours between these two flight times. The complainant could have enquired about this to the Airport Authorities or Qatar Airways authorities and clarified and they would have done the necessary arrangements. But the inaction on the part of the complainant resulted in missing the flight. So from the evidence adduced, we cannot conclude that the complainant could not travel due to the mistake in the ticket. Point No:1 is decided accordingly.
10. Points 2 to 4 are considered together
Complainant did not take out any steps to cross examine the opposite party and to bring out the veracity of the contentions put forth by him. Qatar Airways is not impleaded in the party arrary to find out the actual issue. The reason for not getting the connection flight is due to mistake in the ticket or whether it is due to absence of transit visa, these are to be proved by the complainant by adducing cogent evidence.
11. Opposite party produced e-mail communication between them and their principal agent which is marked as Ext.B1 for getting re-imbursement of the ticket amount which the complainant did not use. The e-mail communication dated 18/02/2020 from Multilink says that “Without remark or stamp copy, we cannot claim full refund”. As per e-mail dated 19/02/2020 “Please be informed airline have not allow to travel because in Isthambul both airports are different SAW and IST”. Again on the same day it was communicated that “If one way sector not used in above ticket, then passenger cannot travel on return sector in same ticket”.
12. So from the communications, it is clear that the opposite party has contacted their principal agent Multilink to get the reimbursement of ticket fare. The Multilink after contacting Qatar Airways informed that the ticket amount will be refunded only if the complainant gets an official letter from Airport Authorities or Qatar Airways representatives at Istambul (SAW) the reason for denial of the boarding pass and if the mistake appears to be from Qatar Airways, he will get the ticket reimbursement. But the complainant did not take any effort to get a written communication from the authorities. So the opposite parties cannot be blamed for the non-reimbursement of ticket amount. Further it is as per Qatar Airways norms that he could not use the return ticket as he did not use Isthambul to Doha, Doha to Cochin Ticket and completed the travel.
13. Further regarding the late arrival of baggage, it is the duty of the complainant to inform the Airport Authorities at SAW airport when he could not travel on the 1st ticket. But the complainant did not give any information regarding the change of ticket. The luggage reached at Cochin Airport on the next day when the complainant filed a complaint before the Airport Authorities. It cannot be termed as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
14. The complainant could not prove by adducing cogent evidence that the mistake in the ticket resulted in missing the flight and it is due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In the absence of any evidence, we are not inclined to allow the prayer in the complaint.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 16th day of February, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant
Ext. A1 – Air Ticket of Tel Aviv to Cochin dated 10/02/2020 (Computer Generated copy).
Ext. A2 – Air Ticket of Istambul to Cochin dated 18/02/2020 (Computer Generated copy).
Ext. A3 – Air Ticket of Delhi to Tel Aviv dated 12/03/2020 (Photocopy).
Ext. A4 - (Series) Lawyer Notice Postal receipt and AD card.
Ext. A5 – Reply Notice dated 14/05/2020 (original).
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties
Ext. B1 – (Series) E-mails send by the respondent to Multilink.
Ext. B2 – Air Ticket PNR RSB77F Tel-Aviv to Cochin, Cochin to Tel-Aviv booked through Multilink.
Ext. B3 – Air ticket booked through Akbar Travels in favour of complainant.
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: NIL
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL
Cost-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
