DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No. 220/2013

1.      Mr. Satyasai Rath

          R/o Flat No.526, B-2, Ganga Block,

          National Games Village,

          Koramangala, Bangalore-560047

2.      Ms. Neha Chaudhary

          R/o Flat No.18, SRM Apartments,

          Plot No.106, IP Extension,

          Delhi-110092                                                      ….Complainants

Versus

1.      Track India Pvt. Ltd.

          Through Managing Director/Director

          A-10, Lajpat Nagar, Part-2,

          New Delhi-110024

2.      Air Asia Airlines

          C/o Track India Pvt. Ltd.

          A-10, Lajpat Nagar, Part-2,

          New Delhi-110024                                  ….Opposite Parties

                                                Date of Institution        :         15.04.13        Date of Order      :         13.08.19

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

1. Briefly put, the complainants Mr. Satyasai Rath and Ms. Neha Chaudhary were nominated by Government of India for a 5 days training course to be held in Selangor, Malaysia from 02.07.12 to 06.07.12. For the said programme, Government of India had issued official passports to the complainants and for such an issuance, nomination and political clearance from Government of India was issued. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure C-1.   
2. It is averred that a list of 53 countries with whom, bilateral agreements on exemption from requirement of Visa by diplomatic, official passport holder are enforced was issued to the complainants by Ministry of External Affairs. The countries to be visited by the complainants were Malaysia and Singapore and both the countries were mentioned in the above said list. It  is stated there is an express provision in the said list that for official and diplomatic passport holders, no Visa was required for visiting those countries. The list of countries exempted to diplomatic official passport holders for requirement of Visa is annexed as Annexure C-2. Thereafter, the complainants made an itinerary/travel schedule for travel to visit Malaysia as well as Singapore.
3. It is further averred that while returning back from Singapore to Malaysia on 07.07.12 by Air Asia flight the complainants were not allowed to ‘Check in’ by the staff of Air Asia Airlines stating that there is Visa requirement to enter Malaysia. The complainants showed the exemption list and tried to explain the official there is no Visa requirement for official passport holder but the official present there did not pay any heed to the request of the complainants. After making sufficient enquiries, the official present there stated that “Malaysian Immigration Authorities” have informed that complainants will not be allowed to board the plane for landing at Low Cost Carrier Terminal (LCCT).
4. It is stated that both the complainants were new to the country and since it was very late in the night the complainants had no choice but to travel by bus despite having purchased air tickets of Air Asia from OP-1 on behalf of OP-2 by paying Rs.4,608/-. Copy of the ticket of complainant No.2 is annexed as Annexure C-3.
5. It is next stated that the complainant No.2 had purchased two handbags from a shop in Singapore for which she was eligible to get GST Refund of Duty paid, at the Custom’s Counter at Singapore Airport. The same could not be reimbursed as she was denied to ‘check in’ the Airlines. Copy of the cash memo for getting GST refund is annexed as Annexure C-4.
6. It is further averred that the complainants went from Singapore to Malaysia by bus and were never denied any entry for want of Visa to Malaysia by the immigration authorities both at Singapore and Malaysia. Copy of the bus ticket is annexed as Annexure C-5. It is further stated that it is matter of common sense that visa rules will be same at any point of entry in a country, irrespective of entry through any airport terminus or any other means of entry, including land route. Aggrieved by the adamant and arbitrary behavior of Air Asia officials at Singapore the complainants approached the forum with the following prayers:

1. Direct the OPs jointly and severally to pay to the complainants Rs.18,11,245.50 as under:

1. Mr. Satyasai Rath, the complainant No.1     Rs.9,04,779.00
2. Ms. Neha Chaudhary, complainant  No.2    Rs.9,06,466.50

2. Direct the OPs to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of denial till date of realization of amount.
3. Direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2. OPs were issued notices. OP No.1 put an appearance on two dates but chose not to contest the case, thereafter OPs were proceeded exparte on 03.09.15.  
3. Exparte evidence of both the complainants have been filed.  Written submissions have been filed on behalf of complainants.
4. Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainants have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged.
5. Having heard the Ld. counsel of the complainants it is noticed that dispute between the parties arose when the complainants were denied to ‘Check in’ at Singapore airport by the staff of Air Asia Airlines stating that there is a Visa requirement to enter Malaysia. The complainants had to face lot of embarrassment and harassment by the highhandedness and adamant behavior of Air Asia Airlines staff at Singapore. The complainants travelled from Singapore back to Malaysia by a bus and were never denied any entry for want of Visa to Malaysia by the immigration authorities both at Singapore and Malaysia.
6. It is not the case of complainants that the ticket issued by OP-1 was invalid or OP-1 had assured them Visa free entry/travel by the ticket booked through them. Hence, OP-1 cannot be held liable for any deficiency or unfair trade practice.

As regards OP-2, the address of OP-2, as mentioned on the invoice placed on record by the complainants exhibited as Ex. CW2/3D is that of Malaysia. Therefore OP-2 does not work or operate within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Further complainants were denied Entry in the Air Asia Airlines at Singapore. We are, therefore of the opinion that complaint against OP-2 without its local address and without any cause of action within the jurisdiction of this forum is not maintainable.

7. For the reasons stated above the complaint is dismissed as being not maintainable with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 13.08.19.