BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 12/10/2009
Date of Order : 29/07/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 542/2009
Between
1. Thomas K. Luka, | :: | Complainants |
Erumelikara (H), Vazhithala. P.O., Thodupuzha. 2. Sophyamma Thomas, W/o. Thomas K. Luka, Erumelikara (H), Vazhithala. P.O., Thodupuzha. |
| (Compts. by Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
The Senior Manager, | :: | Opposite party |
Air India, Collis Estate, M.G. Road, Kochi – 682 016. |
| (By Adv. Binu Mathew, Joseph & Kurian Advocates, Power House Road, Kochi – 682 018) |
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
1. The factual matrix :
The complainants proceeded to the USA by Air India flight from Kochi Airport. Unfortunately, they were denied entry into American soil and they were deported to India by return flight by the same operators. When they returned to Mumbai Airport, they had to wait for 21 long hours to get the connection flight to Kochi. Except the supply of coupons for meals/snacks, no accommodation facilities were provided to take rest and wash during this long hours. Both of them are aged spouses suffering from various ailments connected with old age. They have undergone much physical hardships, mental agony and suffering due to the indifferent attitude of the opposite party company. Hence, they are demanding a total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of compensation in the complaint along with costs of the proceedings.
2. The opposite party is not denying any facts stated in the complaint. But the opposite party company has its own justification for denial of facilities as alleged by the complainant. According to the opposite party, the Air India was not in a position to provide hotel accommodation to the complainants because the deported passengers are not allowed from move out of the intermittent transit station by the immigration authorities. They were sent to Kochi by the immediate available flight. Therefore, they were compelled to remain in the Airport until the next flight to Kochi. The opposite party Airlines have no say over the facilities available in the airport. The deported passengers were temporarily accommodated in the refusal room in the Airport which is manned/controlled by the Central Industrial Security force round the clock. The complainants were provided with transit facilities like break fast, lunch and dinner along with other transit passengers. The averments regarding ailments are denied because the complainants had not made any indication of such infirmities while they were in transit to Kochi. The opposite party concludes with contention that the complaint is devoid of merits.
3. One of the complainants was examined as PW1. Ext. A1 was marked for them. Witness for opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts. B1 to B6 were marked on the side of the opposite party. On closure of evidence, the learned counsels were heard.
4. The points that emerge for our consideration are :-
Whether the complainants were entitled for any facilities?
Whether the opposite party was in a position to provide such facilities to the complainants?
What are the reliefs, if any?
5. Point Nos. i. to iii. :- The complainants are middle aged couple who had travelled to Chicago in the U.S.A. by flight operated by the opposite party company. To their great misfortune, they were denied entry into the foreign land and they were deported by the return flight of Air India. They landed in Mumbai and waited for 21 hours to get the connection flight to Kochi. They were compelled to wait in the Airport for nearly one day for the connection flight to Kochi. The complaint mainly stems out of the short fall in facilities provided to them during this transit period. Naturally, one would raise their eye brows on hearing that the opposite party company was deficient in providing adequate facilities during transit. But the opposite party has its own justification in denying such facilities in transit. The complainants contend that they could have been afforded accommodation outside the Airport in any hotel. But quickly comes the response of the opposite party stating that they were helpless because complainants were not ordinary passengers but deportees by the U.S. Government. Being deportees, they were under the surveillance and control of the Immigration Authority and such passengers are not allowed to go out of the Airport. The complainants, being deported passengers are a class by themselves and they are to be treated separately. They are governed by immigration laws during transit. The deported passengers are actually undergoing 'legal quarantine' because they will be allowed to go out the Airport and mingle with the public only after immigration clearance is complete at the Airport where they have commenced their journey. Therefore, the question of providing hotel accommodation outside the Airport did not arise. The learned lawyer appearing for the complainants have cited decision rendered in Ajay Kalia Vs. Air India Ltd. (II (2009) CPJ 204 (NC) by the Hon'ble National Commission wherein the guidelines regarding the Flight Irregularities prescribed by M/s. Air India have been extensively reproduced. In our view, their guidelines have no application in the instant case because here both the complainants are deportees who were governed by the laws applicable to immigration and the Air India has no say in respect of such passengers with regard to their facilities because they were under the surveillance of the para-military personnel.
6. The passengers were compelled to stay in the Airport in transit. The facilities provided therein are determined by the Airport authorities and not by the public carriers. Even if it is conceded for the moment that the facilities provided by Airport Authorities were not satisfactory, we are not in a position to award any compensation against Airport Authorities as they are not in the party array. The opposite party's contention that they have no say in the kind of facilities provided to the passengers has to be sustained. It is true that even for the deportee passengers adequate facilities like rest and wash are their entitlement in the Airport. But such matters lie outside the purview of the powers of the public carriers like Air India. Moreover, the complainants have not convincingly proved that lounge facilities are owned by the opposite party company in the Airport.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are constrained to dismiss the complaint.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of July 2011.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of passenger E-ticket receipt |
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 07-03-2009 |
“ B2 | :: | Copy of computer print out of e-mail letter dt. 20-04-2009 |
“ B3 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 22-04-2009 |
“ B4 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 21-07-2009 |
“ B5 | :: | Copy of computer print out of e-mail letter dt. 13-11-2009 |
“ B6 | :: | Copy of computer print out of e-mail letter dt. 06-07-2009 |
Depositions :- | | |
PW1 | :: | Thomas. K. Luka - 1st complainant |
DW1 | :: | Abhinaba Das – op.pty |
=========
Date of Despatch of this Order ::
By Post ::
By Hand ::
