Haryana

StateCommission

A/73/2022

DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VISHAL ARORA - Opp.Party(s)

SUKESH KUMAR JINDAL

24 Feb 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

               

       First Appeal No.73 of 2022

                                                Date of Institution: 28.02.2022                                                        Date of order: 24.02.2023

 

Delhi International Airport Limited, having its registered office at ‘New Udaan Bhawan’, Opposite Terminal 3, IGI Airport, New Delhi 110037.

NOTE:  The opposite party/appellant has been impleaded as New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi 110037, in the consumer complaint.

…..Appellant

Versus

Vishal Arora S/o Sh.Om Parkash Girdhar, R/o H.No.5/A Inderpuri Ambala Cantt, Haryana 133001.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.Sukesh Jindal, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Neeraj Goel, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had to travel from New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport to Belgrade, Serbia via Dubai as per the rule on being an Indian citizen complainant did not need a visa for travelling as a tourist for less than 30 days and Dubai also gives on arrival transit visa if required to board a flight. Complainant obtained boarding pass from the airlines and when he went through immigration, the staff of OP asked him to pay some money under table, otherwise, they would not allow him to travel.  On refusal, the complainant called the airlines staff members but the OP did not allow him to board the flight and send him back and cancelled his boarding pass. As a result the complainant lost his ticket fares, hotel and car bookings and also other expenses.  He requested the OP to resolve the issue but to no avail.  Faced with this situation, he served a legal notice dated 20.11.2020 to the OP, but also to no avail.  Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OP, hence the complaint.

2.      OP was proceeded against ex party vide order dated 10.11.2021.

3.      After hearing counsel for the complainant, the learned District Commission, Ambalahas allowed the complaint vide order dated 06.01.2022:-

“In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-

“(i)     To pay Rs.97,670/- to the complainant, which the complainant spent on tickets, hotel and car bookings etc.

(ii)      to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

          (iii)     To pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OP-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the complainant had neither impleaded the concerned airlines i.e. Air India nor the Bureau of Immigration as party who all were proper and necessary parties to the complaint whereas present appellant had been wrongly impleaded with its incorrect details, was not a proper and necessary party to the proceedings.  The verification of passengers coming in or going out, from the Indian Territory is the sole responsibility of Bureau of Immigration and the opposite party/appellant has no concern with the same. This task is under the direct control and supervision of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.  The complainant has not paid any money to the appellant for booking his ticket or otherwise the said money was paid to the airlines and if at all there was any deficiency, the same was solely attributable to the airlines.  Counsel for the appellant  further argued that the visa on arrival is provided to some specific category of Indian Citizens. Even as regard transit visa, UAE issues two types of transit visas, i.e. one for 48 hours which was free of charge and another for 96 hours for AED 50 only. Transit visa were sponsored only by the UAE based airlines and must be processed and approved before entering the UAE. The learned District Commission has wrongly allowed the case of the complainant and requested that impugned order be set aside while allowing the appeal and complaint be dismissed.

6.      Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand vehemently argued that he had to travel from New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport to Belgrade, Serbia via Dubai as per the rule on being an Indian citizen complainant did not require a visa for travelling as a tourist for less than 30 days and Dubai also gives on arrival transit visa if so required to board a flight. He also obtained boarding pass from the airlines, but when he went through immigration, the staff of OP asked him to pay under the table money, otherwise, they would not allow him to travel.  On refusal, staff of the OP did not relent and when complainant called the airlines staff members still the OP did not allow him to board the flight and sent him back and cancelled his boarding pass. The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7.      It is not disputed that he had to travel from New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport to Belgrade, Serbia via Dubai as per the rule on being an Indian citizen, complainant did not require any visa for travelling as a tourist for less than 30 days and Dubai also gives on arrival transit visa if required to board a flight. It is also not disputed that he had booked air tickets for an amount of Rs.42,488/-. It is also not disputed that he obtained boarding pass from the airlines. In order to prove the amount spent in the hotel, taxi fair etc. he placed on record Annexure C-5 and receipt of booking of hotel Annexure C-6 and tickets Annexure C-2 to C-4. Since the complainant had spent more than Rs.95,000/- on his trip and as per the rules, the OP was bound to permit free tourist visa for less than 30 days  and Dubai gives on arrival transit visa if required to board a flight, so the learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant.

8.      Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.Hence,  the appeal  stands dismissed on merits.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.52,835/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

10.    Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

11.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.    File be consigned to record room.

 

24^hFebruary, 2023  Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)