State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Heeranand & Ors. vs Arpit Shah Cathay Pacific Airlines & ... on 2 March, 2012
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR APPEAL NO: 2201/2010 1. Heeranand s/o Devidas r/o House No. 360/21, Regar Basti, Prabhat Mohalla, Malusar Road, Ajmer. 2. Tejumal Devani s/o Thakurdas Devani r/o House No. 22 ,Street no.4, Nandnagar, Beawar, Ajmer. Vs. 1. Arpita Shah Cathay Pacific Airlines Ltd., 107/110, Kancharchungi Building, First Floor, Cannaught Palace, New Delhi. 2. Cathay Pacific Airlines Ltd., 2 Brady Gradys Plaza, 3rd floor 1/447 Senapati Bapat Market, Lower Paral, Mumbai. 3. Satguru Travelers & Tours Service, Shop no. 9-10, K.C.Complex, Daulatbagh, Ajmer. Date of order 2.03.2012 Before: Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla- Presiding Member
Mr.Ajay Tantia counsel for the appellants Mr. Prateek Kasliwal counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2 Mr.Chain Singh counsel for respondent no.3 2 BY THE STATE COMMISSION This appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the District Forum,Ajmer.
Brief facts of the case are that appellants were to go to Manila ( Philippines ). They stated that mother of appellant no.2 had died in Manila and funeral meeting of 12th day was to take place on 13.06.09. One Mr. Ramesh Meghani had sent a visa through e-mail on 9.06.09. On the basis of this, the appellants booked tickets for Manila via Hongkong through respondent no.3 who are the travel agents. The appellants reached Mumbai and they were first denied boarding pass as they could not produced the copy of the original visa. However, they contacted airport authority and they were issued boarding passes but they were refused entry into the plane for want of necessary immigration documents and they had to cancel the journey. It is stated that appellants contacted the respondents for cancellation and refund of ticket amount and they were referred to the travel agent. As they could not got refund of the tickets, they filed a complaint before the District Forum who dismissed their complaint on the ground that airline was not at fault when it did not allow them to travel without necessary immigration documents.
An appeal has been preferred against this order. During arguments the learned counsel for the appellants has restricted his arguments only to the refund of ticket amount. The learned counsel argued that the airline was obliged to cancel the ticket and return the amount to them as they could not undertake their journey. The learned counsel for the airline has strongly refuted the claim of the appellants stating that it was no fault on the part 3 of the airline to refuse boarding without proper immigration documents. He argued that after obtaining the boarding pass the travellers have to go through the immigration process. The appellants did not have any original copy of the visa, hence, immigration did not clear them for travelling and there was no endorsement on their passport. Hence, the airline was duty bound to refuse boarding. He argued that airlines are levied fine if any passanger travells without proper immigration documents. He argued that there is no case of refund of the ticket amount as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the airline. The journey had to be cancelled because of the appellants not possessing valid visa.
I have heard the contentions of both sides. During arguments it was also stated that appellants have stated that they were to attend funeral meeting but the copy of the visa produced by them mentions that they were travelling on a business visa. I think this controversy is not relevant here. It is not disputed that appellants were to fly Manila and they were holding two air tickets of the respondents airline. It is true that they were not holding the original visa documents with them as they have stated that their visa was sent to them on e-mail. The boarding pass was also issued to them with consent of the airport authority as stated by them has not controverted by the respondents. It is also true that immigration did not clear them for travelling for want of original visa and airline was right in refusing boarding to the appellants, but in view of the circumstances the airline should have treated it as a last minute cancellation of tickets and atleast refunded them 50% of the amount as is normally done. The appellants have stated that once they were refused entry into the plane they approached the airline for refund and cancellation of 4 tickets and they were directed to travel agent. The appellants cannot be said to be wholly on fault as on the basis of visa sent to them on e-mail, they booked tickets and airport authority also cleared them and boarding passes were issued but immigration people did not allow them.
In these circumstances the airlines should have considered the refund as applicable to last minute cancellation but the appellants were forced to contact travel agent and then go into this litigation for three years. I think the appellants are entitled for refund of 50% of the ticket amount alongwith compensation for mental agony suffered by them which is fixed at Rs. 15,000/- alongwith costs of the appeal as Rs. 3000/-. The judgment of the District Forum is set aside and the appeal is allowed in the manner as stated above. The respondents shall comply with the order within one month from the date of this order failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Presiding Member