BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.221 of 2012
Date of institution: 08.06.2012
Date of Decision: 06.10.2015
Gurbax Singh son of Charan Singh, resident of H.No.4800, Pancham Society, Sector 68, Mohali.
…… Complainant
Versus
1. Zanus Group # 2800, Sector 68, SAS Nagar, Mohali through Sumit Sharma.
2. JET Airways (India) Ltd., Civil Airport, Chandigarh through.
3. Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai.
………. Opposite Parties
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: None for the complainant.
Shri H.R.Bhardwaj, counsel for OP No.1.
Shri Sunil Dixit, counsel for OP No.2 and 3.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
This complaint was earlier decided by this Forum vide orders dated 04.10.2012. The Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 13.03.2015 remanded back the case to this Forum for deciding it afresh by following due procedure.
The consumer in the present case namely Amardeep Singh is the son of the complainant. He has authorized the complainant to file and prosecute this complaint vide special power of attorney Ex.C-7. The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following directions to the OPs to:
(a) pay him Rs.96,476/- for purchasing ticket from Singapore to Wellington and 420 Singapore Dollar for luggage charges.
(b) pay him Rs.55,000/- for staying at Singapore.
(c) pay him Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental pain, suffering and harassment.
(d) to pay him interest @ 24% per annum.
The case of the complainant is that his said son had bought air ticket from Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) No.1 for journey from New Delhi to Wellington (New Zealand) by making payment of Rs.36,487/- to OP No.2 through cheque No.536306 dated 06.06.2011 drawn on the Punjab National Bank. In this regard, OP No.1 provided to the complainant Flight ticket-cum-itinerary schedule Ex.C-1. As per this schedule, son of the complainant was to travel from New Delhi to Singapore on Flight No.QF-3954 on 20.07.2011. From Singapore, he was to travel to Sydney on Flight No.QF-6 on 20.07.2011. The last journey was to take place on Flight No.QF 47 on 21.07.2011 from Sydney to Wellington. Three boarding passes for these stages of journey Exs.C-2 to C-4 were issued to the son of the complainant by OP No.2 i.e. Jet Airways. Journey from Delhi to Singapore was duly performed by his son on 20.07.2011 on the aforesaid flight. From Singapore his son was not allowed to board the next flight i.e. Qantas Airways Flight No.QF-6 for journey to Sydney on the ground that he did not have the required transit visa for travel to Sydney (Australia). Due to this reason, his son was left with no option but to buy another ticket of Air New Zealand from Singapore to Wellington for Flight No.NZ-439 for a sum of Rs.97,476/- on 21.07.2011 and was issued by Air New Zealand boarding pass Ex.C-5. His son had also to pay extra 420 Singapore Dollars for extra luggage. He had also to spend a sum of Rs.55,000/- on his stay at Singapore. His son had to suffer inconvenience and harassment due to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 who issued him flight ticket Ex.C-1 knowing fully well that he had no transit visa for Sydney (Australia). After that the complainant visited the office of OP No.1 various times for redressal of his grievance but without any effect.
2. OP No.1 in its reply has pleaded in the preliminary objections that it is the sub agent of ‘via.com’ website through which the itinerary was issued. The booking of tickets was made through a web site ‘www.viaworld.in’. The son f the complainant chose the present route on 20th July at 8.45 AM from New Delhi to Singapore through Jet Airways, 20 July at 7.50 PM from Singapore to Sydney through Qantus Airways and on 21 July at 8.55 AM from Sydney to Wellington as this was the cheapest route as compared to other airways. OP No.1 is not the visa agent and is running the business of air ticketing only. The son of the complainant was informed that if he wanted to go via Sydney he must have Transit Visa as was required by the Australian Embassy but the son of the complainant chose this ticket being the cheapest as compared to other airways. The son of the complainant made a call to his visa agent to get the transit visa on his passport and after confirmation from the agent, the son of the complainant agreed to buy the itinerary from OP No.1. It was duty of OP No.2 and 3 that before issuing boarding passes to the son of the complainant they should verify the passport that whether all the requirements are fulfilled or not. Thus, denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.
3. OP Nos.2 & 3 have filed joint written statement. OP No.3 is the Head Office of Jet Airways at Mumbai and OP No.2 is their branch office at Chandigarh. Their stand is that OP No.3 is a renowned airline company and is widely acclaimed for its reputation and quality of service not only in India but also across the globe. They are ISO 9001/2000 certified by the Accredited Unit: Det Norske Veritas B.V. the Netherlands, who are approved by UKAS Quality Management – Accreditation Certification Bodies (UK Registrars), which is the international standard for quality management system for all the airline companies and this international standard specifies requirement for a quality system, where an organization needs to demonstrate its ability to consistently provide product and service meeting customer’s satisfaction and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. They have further pleaded that they are India’s premier airline in the private sector committed inter alia to establish, maintain and to provide safe, efficient and adequate and coordinated air transport for the carriage of passengers, baggage and freight. They have largely achieved what it set out to do – build a world class airline delivering a world class service and in the process, set new standards in the Indian Aviation Sector, for their competitors to emulate. They are one of the most preferred airlines despite stiff competition and have the distinction of being repeatedly adjudged India’s best domestic airline, as it has been meticulously adhering to all the rules and practices for running their airline service. The standards established by the OPs are comparable to the best anywhere in the world. They have stated that flight ticket/itinerary schedule Ex.C-1 was actually issued to the complainant’s son by OP No.1. They have got no relationship with OP No.1 even that of agency. OP No.1 as travel agent did booking of ticket of the complainant’s son through website ‘www.viaworld.in’ as is apparent from Ex.C-1 also. Ex.C-1 was booked entirely with Qantas Airlines. In Ex.C-1 it is clearly mentioned that issuing airline is Qantas Airlines. This ticket of son of the complainant was booked with Qantas Airlines and not with OP Nos.2 & 3. They have further pleaded that as a widely accepted rule, in case any passenger wishes to travel to any international destination from his home country, he should have a valid visa or a transit visa as the case may be. In the present case, the complainant’s son did not have a valid transit visa to travel through Sydney to Wellington. Before issuing ticket to the complainant’s son, OP No.1 should have confirmed with him if he had valid visa or transit visa. It was the duty of OP No.1 to provide proper information and passport to the complainant’s son before issuing him the ticket. Therefore, the error or deficiency of service, if any, is on the part of OP No.1. The son of the complainant travelled to Singapore in the flight of OP Nos.2 & 3 without any difficulty as he had a valid visa of Singapore. It was also the responsibility of the complainant’s son to look out at the outset to confirm that he had complied with the requirements of the country through which he would travel. Therefore, for the conduct of the complainant’s son himself, OP Nos.2 & 3 cannot be held responsible. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint on behalf of his son. The complaint is bad for non joinder of Qantas Airlines. It does not raise any consumer dispute under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’). This Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The complaint is also not maintainable in this Forum as it involves complicated questions of facts and law which can be determined only by the civil court. They have also pleaded that the complainant has placed on file no evidence to show that his son had purchased a fresh ticket by spending Rs.97,476/- for journey from Singapore to Wellington. They have further pleaded that privty of contract, if any, between them and the complainant’s son was over the moment complainant’s son safely landed at the Singapore Airport by boarding their plane. As is widely known in the aviation sector, airline which sells the ticket and places its code on the flight of operating carrier is known as marketing carrier or operating carrier and the airline which actually runs the flight with its own or leased aircraft is known as the operating carrier. In the present case, Qantas Airlines was the issuing carrier and OP Nos.2 & 3 were the operating carriers upto Singapore. They provided the seat and boarding pass to the complainant’s son in their aircraft from New Delhi to Singapore on the basis of Code sharing agreement. There is no deficiency of service on their part qua journey of the complainant’s son from Delhi to Singapore. OP Nos.2 & 3 have thus sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. After remand of the complaint by the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 13.03.2015, OP No.1 tendered his affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/3 in his evidence. The complainant and OP Nos.2 and 3 had already tendered their evidence.
5. After remand, the complainant has not joined the proceedings and, therefore, on the basis of his complaint and documents on record, the present order is being passed.
6. The point for consideration whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as in the absence of transit visa for Sydney the complainant’s son was not taken from Singapore to Sydney and then Sydney to Wellington by Qantas Airlines as per air ticket Ex.C-3 and C-4.
7. So far OP No.1 is concerned, the allegation in the complaint against him is that it was failed to provide transit visa to the son of the complainant at the time of sale of air ticket from Delhi to Singapore, Singapore to Sydney and Sydney to Wellington as per ticket Ex.C-1 and due to acts of omission on the part of OP No.1, the complainant’s son was off boarded at Singapore airport for further journey from Singapore to Sydney as he was not having valid transit visa for Sydney. OP No.1 in its reply has denied having rendered any visa consultancy services to the complainant. As per OP No.1 the complainant’s son has approached it for purchase of air tickets for travel from Delhi to Singapore and OP No.1 being in the business of air ticketing has sold him the cheapest available ticket as per itinerary Ex.C-1. The role of OP No.1 was limited to sale of ticket and not providing any visa guidance as it is no where connected with the same. However, OP No.1 has admitted in its reply regarding providing the details of obtaining visa after retrieving the same from internet. The complainant has not proved on record any application for obtaining transit visa having been submitted to OP No.1. As per the visa rules, the complainant was required to approach the concerned authorities directly for obtaining the transit visa. There is nothing on record to show whether the son of the complainant ever applied to the authorities for transit visa. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove his allegation of deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Counsel for OP No.1 has relied upon 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.
8. So far OP No.2 and 3 is concerned, the allegation of the complainant is that the boarding passes to his son were issued by OP No.2 for three legs of journey i.e. New Delhi to Singapore, then Singapore to Sydney and Sydney to Wellington. The grievance of the complainant is that OP No.2 has issued the boarding passes to his son from New Delhi to Wellington after checking all the documents and, therefore, the complainant’s son believed that the boarding passes are in order and he would have no problem in undertaking journey on the specified route by the Jet Airways from New Delhi to Singapore and Qantas Airways from Singapore to Wellington. He was shocked when he was not allowed to board the plane at Singapore airport for onward journey to Sydney by Qantas airways on 20.07.2011 on the ground that he was not holding transit visa for Sydney and due to the acts of OP No.2 and 3 the son of the complainant has been put to inconvenience and harassment as he was forced to stay at his own expenses at Singapore for 42 hours and had to purchase fresh ticket by paying additional amount of Rs.97,476/- and further paid 420 Singapore Dollar for his onward journey from Singapore to Sydney and from Sydney to Wellington as per Ex.C-5 and C-6.
9. On consideration, we find that the allegations of the complainant are not wholly proved by evidence against OPs. The perusal of Ex.C-3 i.e. the boarding pass of Qantas Airways for journey from Singapore to Sydney vide Flight No.QF-0006L on 20.07.2011 no where mentions any remarks from the airport authorities showing de-boarding of the son of the complainant due to non possession of transit visa for Sydney. Thus, the bald allegation without any supporting evidence against OPs is of no help to the complainant. Further the complainant has failed to show the copy of the passport showing having valid transit visa at the time of issuance of boarding passed by OP No.2 and 3. The complainant has failed to prove his case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and in case the complainant himself has not carried the transit visa with him, he is not permitted take the benefit of his own wrongs. Since the complainant has failed to prove his primary case against the OPs, therefore, there is no occasion for us to look into the alleged subsequent loss or damages, complainant has claimed in the complaint.
10. Thus, the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as costs. 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.
October 06, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
