State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jobanjeet Singh vs Qatar Airways on 1 July, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1007 of 2014
Date of institution : 21.07.2014
Date of decision : 01.07.2015
Jobanjeet Singh son of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, resident of Village
Mallian, Tehsil and District Amritsar and presently residing at France,
through his authorized signatory Sh. Sukhdev Singh son of Puran
Singh, resident of village Mallian, Tehsil and District Amritsar.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Qatar Airways, Head Office at Bajaj Bhawan, Ground Floor,
opposite Inox Cinema, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021,
Maharashtra, through its Director/Partner/Principal Officer/
Person Over All incharge.
2. Qatar Airways having its Local Office at Sri Guru Ram Dass
International Airport Building, Rajasansi, Amritsar, through its
Director/Manager/Officer, Incharge.
3. M/s Sawere Travels Pvt. Ltd., 2230/1, Sawera Complex, near
Bank of India, Katra Baghian, Amritsar, through its Partner/
Proprietor/Person Over All Incharge.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
03.06.2014 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Upender Prashar, Advocate For respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Shri Avinit Avasthi, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Ex parte First Appeal No.1007 of 2014 2 JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 03.06.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by him, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for directing the respondents/opposite parties to refund the air fare charges amounting to Rs.34,700/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and to pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation on account of the mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience caused to him, was dismissed.
2. The complainant Jobanjeet Singh filed the complaint through his Authorized Representative Sukhdev Singh. In some part of the complaint, it was Jobanjeet Singh, who was described as complainant and in the other part thereof, his Authorized Representative has been described as complainant. It has been alleged therein that Sukhdev Singh purchased air ticket of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2-Airlines, through opposite party No.3, who is their private travel agent, for the travelling of complainant to France on 11.09.2011. He was having valid visa, pocket money and the requisite ticket, when he went to board this Airline on 11.09.2011. However, he was asked to come on 14.09.2011; for which another ticket number was provided to him. On that day also, he was not sent to France. He paid air fare charges of Rs.23,200/- and Rs.11,500/-, but in-spite of the receipt of that fare, the opposite parties failed to carry him to France by air. He was successful to go to France on 16.09.2011, through other Airlines; named, Air France. First Appeal No.1007 of 2014 3 On account of the said act of the opposite parties, he suffered economic loss, mental pain, agony and harassment. They have failed to refund the air fare, in-spite of repeated requests and service of the legal notice upon opposite party No.3 on 20.10.2011.
3. The complaint was contested by opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, who filed joint written reply before the District Forum. In the written reply, they admitted that the complainant held booking on their flight to France on 11.09.2011 and was not permitted to board the flight on that day and was re-issued a ticket for 14.09.2011. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they averred that they were to follow the conditions, as contained in the "Conditions of Carriage", issued by "International Air Transportation Association (IATA)". The complainant was not permitted to board the flight on 11.09.2011, as he was unable to give satisfactory answers to the queries put to him as a part of profiling procedure; which is mandatory for the Airlines. He appeared to be travelling to Paris on "Student Visa" for a period of one year, but was carrying only 200 Euros in cash and 10 kgs. of check-in baggage. He was unable to answer, as to how he was going to survive for one year with such limited cash and luggage. He was unable to explain as to in which institution he had been enrolled in for studying in Paris and what course he was going to pursue. He was not even able to speak English or French and was unable to answer, as to what language would be the medium of instructions for his studies in France. In all these circumstances, it was reasonable for them to be suspicious and, as such, the matter was referred to Austrian Airlines Liaison First Appeal No.1007 of 2014 4 Officer for further clarification regarding his visa from French Embassy and he was asked to maintain contact with them, so that as and when the reply was received from the French Embassy, he could be intimated. The necessary clarification from the Embassy was received on 13.09.2011 and he was booked on the same flight to Paris for 14.09.2011. On that day, he did not show up for the flight and apparently chose to fly to Paris on some other Airline on 16.09.2011. A sum of Rs.20,436/- had been received by them for the ticket so purchased by the complainant and a seat was duly kept for him in the said flight on 14.09.2011, but he did not choose to utilize their services. In these circumstances, no refund was payable. Even if the air fare was repayable, that could have been done through the travel agent; through whom the ticket was purchased. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. They acted in good faith in the discharge of their legal obligations. The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable against them. They prayed for the dismissal thereof with costs.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant was possessing a valid air ticket and visa for travelling from Delhi to France and, as such, opposite First Appeal No.1007 of 2014 5 parties Nos.1 & 2 could not have refused him to board the flight on 11.09.2011. They had no authority to check the genuineness of the visa etc. From the evidence produced on the record, it firmly stands proved that the complainant again went to the airport on 14.09.2011 and he was again not allowed to board the flight. The opposite parties have failed to rebut the cogent and convincing evidence so produced by the complainant and from that evidence, it stands proved that they received air fare charges of Rs.23,200/- and Rs.11,500/-. They are bound to refund the same for not permitting the complainant to board their flight. He had to spend more money for travelling to France by other airlines and the difference in the air fare is also to be paid by them. The opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service; as a result of which the complainant suffered economically, harassment and mental agony and, as such, he is entitled to the compensation, as claimed in the complaint. The District Forum committed an illegality, by placing reliance on the evidence produced by the opposite parties, which was not admissible. It failed to take cognizance of the fact that the opposite parties have not been able to rebut the evidence, so produced by the complainant, and was not justified in recording the findings in their favour. He prayed that the appeal be allowed, the order passed by the District Forum be set aside and the directions, as prayed for in the complaint, be issued to the opposite parties.
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 that correct findings were recorded by the District Forum, after properly evaluating the First Appeal No.1007 of 2014 6 evidence produced by both the sides. From the evidence produced by the opposite parties, it stands proved that they entertained a genuine doubt about the documents, possessed by the complainant, for travelling to France and were justified in referring the matter to the French Embassy. It was on that ground that he was not permitted to board the flight on 11.09.2011 and after the clarification was received, the next flight was booked for 14.09.2011 and he never made himself available on that day for boarding the flight. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that there was any deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties. He referred to Article No.8 of the "IATA General Conditions of Carriage (Passenger and Baggage)" (in short, "the Conditions"), in support of his argument that the opposite parties were well within their right in not allowing the complainant to board the flight on 11.09.2011 on account of the doubt regarding the genuineness of the travelling documents, possessed by him.
8. For the disposal of the present appeal, the following questions arise for determination:-
i) Whether opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 had the authority in not permitting the complainant to board the flight on 11.09.2011, by invoking Article 8 of the Conditions?
ii) Whether the complainant had gone to the airport for boarding the flight of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 on 14.09.2011?
9. Relevant portion of Article 8 of the "Conditions" is reproduced below:-
"Article 8 Refusal and Limitation of Carriage: First Appeal No.1007 of 2014 7
8.1: Right to Refuse Carriage Carrier may refuse carriage of any passenger or passenger's baggage for reasons of safety or if, in the exercise of its reasonable discretion, Carrier determines that:
8.1.1 such action is necessary in order to comply with any applicable laws, regulations, or orders of any state or country to be flown from, into or over; or 8.1.2 the conduct, age or mental or physical state of the passenger is such as to:
8.1.2.1 require special assistance of Carrier, or 8.1.2.2 cause discomfort or make himself or herself objectionable to other passengers, or 8.1.2.3 involve any hazard or risk to himself or herself or to other persons or to property; or 8.1.3 such action is necessary because the passenger has failed to observe the instructions of Carrier; or 8.1.4 the passenger has refused to submit to a security check; or 8.1.5 the applicable fare or any charges or taxes payable have not been paid, or credit arrangements agreed between Carrier and the passenger (or the person paying for the ticket) have not been complied with; or 8.1.6 the passenger does not appear to be properly documented; or."First Appeal No.1007 of 2014 8
In order to substantiate the averments contained in the written reply of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 and on the basis of which, they did not permit the complainant to board the flight on 11.09.2011, they proved on record the affidavit of Henry Moses, Country Manager- India Ex.OP-1,2/1. Para-3 of his affidavit is very relevant and is reproduced below:-
"I say that the Complainant was not permitted to board the flight No.QR 299 of Qatar Airways on September 11, 2011 for the reason that the Complainant was unable to satisfactorily answer queries that were put to him as a part of a profiling procedure which is mandatory for Airlines. I say that the Complainant appeared to be travelling to Paris on a Student Visa for a period of one year but was carrying only 200 Euros in cash and 10 kg of check-in baggage. I say that the Complainant was unable to answer as to how he was going to survive for one year with such limited cash and luggage. I say that the Complainant was also unable to explain as to which institution he was enrolled in for studying in Paris or what course he was going to pursue. I say that the Complainant who appeared not to be able to speak any English or French, was even unable to answer as to what language would be the medium of instructions for his studies in France. I say that in the aforesaid circumstances, it was not unreasonable for Qatar Airways to be suspicious and, the matter was referred to the Austrian Airlines Liaison Officer for further clarifications on First Appeal No.1007 of 2014 9 the Complainant's visa from the French Embassy. I say that the Complainant was requested to maintain contact with Qatar Airways so that, as and when a reply from the French Embassy would be received, the Complainant could be intimated."
10. The complainant had come to know, after the written reply was filed by opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, that the refusal on their part in not allowing him to board the flight was on account of the said facts. He never rebutted those facts, by filing his own affidavit nor such facts were rebutted by his Authorized Representative; namely, Sukhdev Singh, whose affidavit was proved on the record, as Ex.C-1. Thus, all those facts have remained unrebutted. The carrying of small currency of France or little luggage may not be a ground for doubting the genuineness of visa, but the inability on the part of the complainant to disclose the name of the Institute or the name of the course, in which he had taken the admission and his inability to speak English or French language, were certainly bound to raise a doubt in the mind of the officials of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, as to whether he was having a genuine visa or not? They were within their rights to refuse to carry the complainant in their Airline, in order to comply with the laws, regulations or orders of the country of France; to which he was to be flown into. It cannot be said that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not permitting him to board the flight on 11.09.2011.
11. Sukhdev Singh in his affidavit Ex.C-1, deposed that the complainant was asked to come on 14.09.2011 and he went to the First Appeal No.1007 of 2014 10 opposite parties on that day, vide Ticket No.1575378513056, but was not again sent to France on one excuse or the other. In support of that deposition, the air ticket for 14.09.2011 was proved on the record as Ex.C-10.
12. This evidence of the complainant was duly rebutted by opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, by means of the affidavit of Henry Moses Ex.OP-1,2/1 and the printout of the computer regarding the non- showing up of the complainant to board the flight on 14.09.2011 Ex.OP-1,2/2. The said witness deposed in his affidavit that a seat was kept for the complainant on Flight No.QR-299 to France on 14.09.2011, but he did not choose to utilize, by not showing up to board the flight. His deposition stands corroborated by the above said document, to which authenticity of truth is attached. Such a document cannot be manufactured or prepared later on. The matter fed in the computers at the Airport cannot be tampered with easily and it becomes very much clear from that document that the complainant had not shown up for boarding the flight on 14.09.2011.
13. In view of the above discussion, both the above posed questions are answered in favour of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 and against the complainant. In the ultimate analysis, we conclude that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the District Forum is upheld.
14. The arguments in this case were heard on 29.06.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
First Appeal No.1007 of 2014 11
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER July 01, 2015 (Gurmeet S)