BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.  45 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:          05.02.2015

                                               Date of Decision:            16.09.2015

Prabhjot Singh son of Makhan Singh permanent resident of 502/2, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh presently residing at 500N Caraway Road, Apartment No.1023, Jonesboro AR 72 401 USA moving the present application through his authorised representative Makhan Singh (father) resident of 502/2, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Uniglobe Shergill Travels through its Director, SCF No.99, Phase-XI, SAS Nagar, Mohali 160062.

………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Ms. Namita Kandhari, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Dinesh Gupta, counsel for the OP.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant through his authorised representative Shri Makhan Singh. The complainant has sought the direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to pay him Rs.2,80,000/- as compensation for losses suffered by him.

                The case of the complainant is that is he got study visa for USA for which he required air tickets. The complainant approached the OP for buying air tickets On 26.07.2014 the OP issued air ticket of Lufthansa Airlines in the name of the complainant for 01.08.2014 by paying Rs.59,500/-. The complainant alongwith his family went to Delhi International Airport for boarding flight to USA by hiring taxi. When the complainant entered into the airport for check in, he was denied the boarding for the reason that one of the stops in the ticket of the complainant for of a domestic airport i.e. Brussels for which country the complainant did not have a visa. The complainant was not allowed to board the place and the ticket was returned to him with the remarks ‘Off Loaded’.  The complainant contacted the OP and the staff of the OP instead of ratifying the mistake asked the complainant to pay Rs.20,000/-  as cancellation charges of the ticket which the complainant was forced to pay  for the fresh ticket for USA.  The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 13.11.2014 to the OP but without any result. With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP.  The OP appeared and filed reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant did not seek nor any such services from the OP.  The father of the complainant has no locus standi to file an affidavit in evidence in respect of the transaction, which took place between the complainant and the OP. Supply of transit visa does not form part of the ticket. It has its separate application, requirements to be met with, visa fee chargeable by the concerned country as well as the fee of the service provider.

                On merits, the OP has pleaded that Makhan Singh approached OP on 26.072014 for ticket of specified route and airlines for New Delhi/Munish/Brussels/Chicago which was issued for Rs.59,500/-. The complainant was supposed to obtain visa thereafter on the basis of holding of ticket and he had not sought services of the OP in this regard. The complainant had not obtained transit visa for Brussles, which led to refusal by the Lufthansa Airlines to board him on the flight. The complainant sought a fresh ticket which was available for Rs.68,150/- with a difference of Rs.8,000/-, out of which Rs.2,000/- were towards service charges of the OP. The complainant was apprised of these applicable charges and the complainant consented for issuance of the ticket. The refund charges of the ticket after deduction of cancellation charges of Rs.12,000/- were to be received by the OP from the Airlines after 3-4 weeks as per normal procedure. The complainant was allowed adjustment of Rs.47,500/- at the time of issuing another ticket.  The complainant readily took another ticket upon payment of Rs.20,000/-  In August, 2014 the complainant again visited the OP and purchased another ticket for his daughter for Chicago for 11.08.2014 against the price of Rs.77,469/-.  Denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of  the documents Ex.C-1 to C-8.

4.             Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Param Shergil, its Director Ex.OP-1/1 and document Ex.OP-1.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by them.

6.             The complainant has purchased air ticket for New Delhi/MUC for flight UA 763 01/08; MUC/BRU for flight No.UA 2282 01/08; BRU/Chicago for flight No.UA 973 01/08; Chicago/New Delhi for flight No.3422 01/08 for undertaking journey on 01.08.2014. The ticket was purchased on 26.07.2014 against invoice issued by the OP Ex.C-1.  When the complainant entered the airport to check in he was denied the boarding pass by the airport authorities on the ground that as per his travel itinerary he was to halt at Brussels for which the complainant did not have a valid visa and, therefore, the he was not given the boarding pass and the ticket was returned to him with the remarks ‘off loaded’. Since the complainant was to go to USA and could not postpone his journey, therefore, he has purchased a fresh ticket for USA from the OP by paying additional amount of Rs.20,000/- as per the demand of the OP. The complainant brought to the notice of the OP the fact regarding off loading due to not holding valid visa for Brussels by the airport authorities and put the  blame on the OP for not giving him proper guidance of obtaining Brussels visa at the time of sale of air tickets against invoice Ex.C-1. Due to the acts of omission on the part of the  OP, as per complainant, he has suffered embarrassment at the airport as well as was made to shell out additional amount of Rs.20,000/-  for purchase of new ticket. Therefore, he has alleged the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the OP.

7.             The OP has denied any act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. As per the OP, it is in the business of air ticketing and not visa consultancy services. The complainant has purchased the ticket as per agreed travel sector  and for the same he has paid Rs.59,500.00 as per Ex.C-1. The OP is under no legal obligation to provide visa guidance to any air ticket purchaser who approaches them for buying the tickets. The OP has not charged any visa fee from the complainant as that was beyond its business terrain. Therefore, due to the acts of omission and commission on the part of the complainant i.e. for not having valid visa for Brussels which falls in the journey sector from New Delhi to Chicago and return journey from Chicago to New Delhi. It was the responsibility of the complainant himself to be equipped with the rules and regulations governing the sectors of his journey and for not following the rules, the complainant, if has been off loaded by the airport authorities, he cannot pass on the buck to the OP for his own wrongs. Further as per the OP the complainant and his family is the repeat customers with it because as per Ex.OP-1 his own real sister has purchased the ticket from the OP for sectors New Delhi – Hong Kong- Chicago for 05.08.2014 for undertaking journey on 11.08.2014. Had the complainant been not satisfied with the services of the OP, there would not be any repeat customer from the same family to the OP.

8.             The main document relied upon by both the parties is Ex.C-1 where  the purchase of ticket against consideration for Sector New Delhi/MUC/Brussels/Chicago/New Delhi has been shown against consideration.  The OP has also admitted the sale of air ticket as per Ex.C-1. The perusal of the Ex.C-1 shows that the OP has charged only the air ticket charges and there is no charge claimed on visa services.  Further the complainant has not shown any document i.e. application for grant of visa submitted to the OP, payment of visa fee or other charges leviable for seeking visa for Brussels.  In the absence of any document on record to show that the complainant has also availed the visa services from the OP, the grievance of the complainant against the OP for not providing him visa guidance is not maintainable.

9.             As per the OP the visa application requirements to be met with visa fee chargeable by the concerned country as well as the fee of service provider is to be submitted by the ticket holder to the concerned quarter for seeking visa for visiting that particular country and no such application has ever been received by the OP from the complainant even for guidance or processing.  Since the OP’s role is limited to sale of air tickets to the complainant as the requirement for a particular sector and ensure the sale of confirmed ticket, the OP has not failed in this regard in any manner as is evident from the fact that the complainant was holding valid tickets for undertaking journey from New Delhi to Chicago when he reported for check in at the airport, as per the complainant’s own admission and document Ex.C-2. Obtaining of the visa was the job of the complainant only and the travel plans if got disrupted due to his own fault, the OP is not liable in any manner. In support of our such findings we rely on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in  A. Panchapakesan & Others Vs. Pioneer Aero Travels (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., 2014(1) CLT 263 wherein the valid ticket holder was not allowed to board the flight saying that the passport of complainant No.2 and 3 did not bear the stamp “immigration clearance not required”. The travel agency is not liable for deficiency in service as it was the duty of the ticket holder to obtain the passport and getting the ECNR stamp etc.

9.             Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove the consumer service provider relationship with the OP as no visa fee has been paid by him to the OP as is evident from the contents of Ex.C-1. Therefore, the question of deficiency in service on the  part of the OP does not arise. Hence the complaint being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

September 16, 2015.    

                        (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu )

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member