State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
C-300/1999 vs Royal Jordanian Airlines, on 14 March, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 14-03-2008 Complaint Case No. C-300/1999 Mrs. Bimla Chandna, Complainant W/o Sh. Ashok Chandna, Through R/o B-4/108, Safdarjung Enclave, Mr. Mahesh Chaudhary, New Delhi. Advocate. Versus 1. M/s Royal Jordanian Airlines, Opposite Party No.1 C-56, Connaught Circus, Through New Delhi. Mr. U.A. Rana with Mr. Abhishek Rao, Advocates. 2. M/s Amman Airport Authority Opposite Party No.2. (Immigration Department), Amman Airport, Amman, Jordan. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Mr. G.D. Dhanuka - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Complainant boarded Royal Jordanian Flight No.RJ-193 of OP-1 on 04.06.1998 at New Delhi for her final destination New York. There was a stop over at Amman and from there the complainant was to board Royal Jordanian Flight No.RJ-261 on 05.06.1998. At Amman she was made to surrender her passport to OP-2 at the instance of OP-1 on 05.06.1998. When the complainant reported at Amman airport for boarding the flight to New York, it was found that her passport had been misplaced by OP-2 and the complainant had to miss the flight. The Indian Embassy at Amman issued to the complainant another passport after the husband of the complainant faxed a copy of the lost passport from India, which, incidentally was available with him. However, the U.S. Embassy at Amman refused to give Visa on this passport. Hence, the complainant had no option but to return to India on 08.06.1998. She applied for U.S. VISA and this time she was given a VISA only for a period of six months, though the earlier VISA was for a period of 5 years upto the year 2002 and was a multiple entry visa.
2. According to the complainant the officials of OP-1 had promised her free passage to Amman-India-Amman but this promise was not kept when she approached OP-1 for the same after obtaining a fresh U.S. visa. She, then, purchased another ticket for Rs.54,000/- of another airline and went to New York on 15.06.1998. The complainant suffered mentally, physically as well as financially due to the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. She is claiming a total sum of Rs.5,02,200/- including Rs.5 lacs on account of financial loss due to the money spent on telephones and on obtaining a fresh U.S. visa, and mental agony.
3. OP-2 is exparte. OP-1 has denied any liability for the loss of the passport of the complainant by OP-2. It is denied that the complainant surrendered the passport to OP-2 at the instance of OP-1. According to it the passport was surrendered by complainant to the Jordanian immigration authorities as per procedure because the complainant had to go to her hotel outside the airport for the overnight stay. OP-1 has denied any promise of free passage to Amman-Delhi-Amman. OP-1 has also raised the plea of territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action arose at the Amman airport.
4. Parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.
5. As is apparent from the rival claims of the parties as referred above the main contention of the counsel for OP No.1 is that it is not guilty for deficiency in service as the passport was not misplaced by it and if at all it was misplaced it was by OP No.2 and, therefore, OP No.2 is liable and hence if at all complainant is entitled for any compensation she has to be compensated by OP No.2.
6. As against this the counsel for the complainant has contended that it was OP No.1 to whom the complainant handed over the passport and, therefore, the entire responsibility rests with OP No.1 and more over the acknowledgement of the passport was issued by OP No.2 to OP No.1 and, therefore, liability of OP No.1 and OP No.2 is joint and several in causing loss to the complainant in as much as that the complainant had to return to India in the absence of passport and original VISA which was for 5 years and it had to arrange another VISA which was only for 6 months and as a consequence she has suffered mental agony, harassment, emotional suffering and physical discomfort and many more sufferings.
7. While refuting the aforesaid contentions the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has referred to the legal notice served by the complainant upon it wherein the complainant has altogether made out a new case . In this regard the learned counsel has referred to para 2, 5 of the legal notice which are to the following effect:-
2.
That my clientess was made to surrender her passport to Airport Authority at Amman Airport (Immigration Deptt.) and my clientess was issued a Card as an acknowledgement for the surrender of the passport.
5. That since the U.S. Embassy at Amman had refused to give visa to my clientess, as such my clientess was forced to return to India, however, my clientess was assured by a senior official that my clientess would be given a free passage to Amman-India-Amman.
One Mr. Naib, a Senior Officer or your Airline at Amman and Mr. Taleb Hadidi, Regional Manager at New Delhi had also confirmed the free passage and some extra facilities on 08-06-98 when my clientess called at his office in New Delhi. My clientess stayed there at Amman upto 07-06-1998 and came back to India 08-06-1998.
8. Apart from this learned counsel for OP NO.1 has also referred to conditions of contract particularly clause 10 of the contract, which is as under:-
10.
Passenger shall comply with Government travel requirements, present exit, entry and other required documents and arrive at airport by time fixed by carrier or, if no time is fixed, early enough to complete departure procedures.
9. Cumulative effect of the aforesaid paras of the legal notice as well as condition No.10 of the contract is that the formalities were to be completed by the complainant. As per this condition it was the complainant who was to deliver the travel requirements, present exist, entry and other required documents and arrive at airport at the time fixed by the career and to complete procedure.
10. Let us accept all the contentions of the counsel for OP No.1 as it is. Still the fact remains that the passport was handed to OP No.1 by the complainant on reaching Amman and in the process OP No.1 gave passport to OP No.2. Even otherwise there was a direct relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OP No.1. The relationship of OP No.2, if any, was that of intermediatory, though the services of OP No.2 were availed by OP No.1 for the benefit of the complainant. OP No.2 had issued acknowledgement receipt of the passport in favour of OP No.1. It was due to inadvertence that OP No.2 misplaced the passport and as a result the complainant suffered immensely. So much so the passport issued by Indian Embassy at Amman was not honoured by the US Embassy at Amman as it refused to give visa and a s a consequence she had to return to India on 08-06-1998.
11. Liability of OP No.2, if any, is qua OP No.1. Deficiency in service as defined by section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. Therefore, any kind of shortcoming or inadequacy in the manner of performance of any service or contract between the parties amounts to deficiency in service.
12. The contention of the counsel for OP No.1 as to the responsibility of the complainant to give travel documents etc. does not cut ice as it is on the premise of misplacement of the passport by OP No.2 which was given to OP No.1, we are limiting the deficiency in service qua OP No.1 only to that extent. It was not for the failure of the complainant to produce requisite documents as referred to condition No.10 of the Condition and Contract that the complainant returned to India. It was misplacement of the passport and non-honouring of the passport issued by Indian Embassy at Amman by the USA Embassy at Amman that the complainant suffered this agony.
13. The contention of the counsel for OP No.1 that the complainant did not hand over the passport to OP No.1 is belied by the acknowledgment issued by OP No.2 in favour of OP No.1. Had the passport not been given to OP No.1 question of issuing receipt in favour of OP No.1 would not have arise. How OP No.1 came into possession of the passport of the complainant if it was not given to it by the complainant? The averment made in the legal notice is of no relevance so far as the factual matrix are concerned. It is common knowledge that whenever there is a stop over for the direct flight, at the transit the airlines collect passport of passengers and issue hotel vouchers. There is no such procedure of surrendering of passport directly to immigration office in the transit or stop over of a direct flight as the one in question was from Amman to New York.
14. Taking cumulative view of the misplacement of the passport by OP No.2 which had attracted relationship of OP No.1 and OP No.2 so far as safe custody of the passport was concerned coupled with the fact that complainant had availed the services directly from OP No.1 we deem that for such deficiency which was not the result of malafide act but was due to some inadvertence, lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by OP No.1 would meet the ends of justice.
14. Complaint is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
15. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
16. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
17. Announced on the 14th March, 2008 (Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (G.D. Dhanuka) Member jj