Emirates vs Desraj Malhotra

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal Nos. A -07/672 and A -07/677 Emirates Airlines Vs. Mr. Desraj Malhotra and Anr. and Mr. Desraj Malhotra Vs. Emirates Airlines and Anr. by which while dismissing appeal of the OP, appeal filed by complainant was allowed and compensation granted by District forum was enhanced.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent No.1 purchased airline ticket of OP /Petitioner through its agent OP.2/Respondent No. 2. He is an entrepreneur and frequent traveler to Europe and other foreign destinations in connection with business and holds a ''Shenagan Visa'' which is valid for the two years and is applicable for 16 European countries including France. The complainant was visiting a Trade Fair being organized by the CII at Reunion Island, a French Territory, scheduled from 7th to 17th November, 2003, and had paid for the participation, cost of Rs. 71,610/ -, as a delegate member and had also applied for Visa for visiting the particular destination. On 5th November, the complainant took his flight from New Delhi and at the counter of OP at the airport the officials of OP verified the ticket, passport and visa and thereafter the complainant was allowed to check in and was issued a boarding pass for flight No. EA 543. He arrived at Dubai and on 6 -11 -2003 boarded another Emirate Flight No. EK - 701 for Mauritius. As per the itinerary, he was to board Air Mauritius flight NO MK 230 for traveling to Reunion Island and when the complainant went for check in, the immigration counter of the Mauritius airport staff, did not allow the complainant to travel any further and was told that he cannot travel to Reunion Island for want of proper Visa/travel document. The complainant was detained in Mauritius for lack of endorsement on his Visa which had an endorsement "Also valid for French Territories". The complainant tried to explain the officials of the airport staff at Mauritius but to no avail and the efforts to obtain a fresh Visa also could not succeed as the proceedings were to take ten days by which time the fair would have concluded. The complainant had already booked goods worth Rs. 5.00 Lakhs for the fair and had shipped to Reunion Island which could not be withdrawn from the customs at Reunion Island as the complainant was not allowed to travel. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that complainant hired services of OP to travel to Mauritius from New Delhi and advise as to correctness of travel documents by the complainant for his onward travel from Mauritius was not within the scope of services which was provided by OP. It was further submitted that checking visa document was not part of its duty. It was further submitted that as per complainant his visa was valid for travel to France, but was not valid for travel to French Territories without endorsement and in such case there was no deficiency on the part of OP. OP denied other allegations and submitted that complainant has not impleaded Air Mauritius as a party and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

DISTRICT Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OPs to pay Rs.50,000/ - as compensation and Rs.10,000/ - as cost of litigation. Both parties filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal of OP, but allowed appeal of complainant and enhanced compensation to Rs.2,00,000/ - against which this revision petition has been filed. None appeared for Respondent No. 2 even after service and he was proceeded ex -parte.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of no iota of evidence on record to prove deficiency on the part of petitioner in providing services for travelling upto Mauritius and inspite of not impleading Air Mauritius as party who denied boarding in its flight from Mauritius to Reunion Island, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in enhancing compensation; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, respondent submitted that as proper advice was not given by staff of the Airlines -Petitioner and Respondent No.2 regarding endorsement of visa, order passed by State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

IT is admitted case of the parties that complainant travelled on the airlines of petitioner from New Delhi to Mauritius and he was to travel by Air Mauritius from Mauritius to Reunion Island. No deficiency has been imputed by the Complainant on the part of OP till journey upto Mauritius. When Complainant was to travel by Air Mauritius from Mauritius to Reunion Island, no deficiency on the part of OP can be fastened for restraining complainant by airport staff of Mauritius for travelling from Mauritius to Reunion Island for want of proper visa/travelled document and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal of OP.

RESPONDENT submitted that it was obligatory on the part of OP to issue ticket only after checking all traveled documents and OP failed to issue ticket without alleged endorsement on respondent''s visa. This argument is devoid of force; firstly, because no air ticket has been issued in favour of the complainant for travelling through OP Airlines from Mauritius onwards; and secondly the complainant purchased ticket on 29.10.2003 whereas he applied for visa on 21.10.2003; so, there was no occasion for the OP to peruse complainant''s visa/document before issuing ticket. While issuing tickets no travel documents/visa are required to be seen by the travel agent. Not only this, even in application for visa dated 30.10.2003 main destination i.e. Reunion Island was not mentioned and it was blank and in such circumstances, no liability could have been fastened on the part of petitioner for deficiency in service.

COMPLAINANT himself mentioned in the complaint that he is an entrepreneur and frequent traveller to Europe and other foreign destinations in connection with the business meaning thereby he was well aware about necessary requirements of endorsement of visa and he should have got his visa endorsed for Reunion Island and for his fault OP cannot be held liable for any deficiency. Complainant in paragraph 11 of the complaint has mentioned "The conduct of the complainant for not having got the "endorsement" i.e. a technical formality on his VISA was due to lack of bonafide knowledge/guidance of the procedures and hence was neither intentional nor deliberate"

which indicates that "it was mistake on the part of complainant and there was no mistake on the part of OP in issuing tickets.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on Article 14 of IATA General Conditions of Carriage (Passenger and Baggage), which runs as under: "Article 14 Administrative Formalities 14.1 General The passenger shall be solely responsible for complying with all laws, regulations, orders, demands and travel requirements of countries to be flown from, into or over, and with Carrier''s Regulations and instructions. Carrier shall not be liable for any aid or information given by any agent or employee of Carrier to any passenger in connection with obtaining necessary documents or visas or complying with such laws, regulations, orders, demands, and requirements, whether given in writing or otherwise; or for the consequences to any passenger resulting from his failure to obtain such documents or visas or to comply with such laws, regulations, orders, demands, requirements, rules or instructions"

which makes it clear that carrier is not liable for any aid or information given by any agent or employee of the carrier to any passenger in connection with obtaining necessary documents/visas, etc.

THIS Commission in R.P. No. 492 of 2013 Air India Vs. Sushil Kumar observed as under: 21. The governing IATA General Conditions of Carriage (Passenger and Baggage) Article 14.2 expressly provide that Carrier reserves the right to refuse carriage of any passenger who has not complied with applicable laws, regulations, orders, demands or requirements or whose documents do not appear to be in order.

The Governing IATA General Conditions of Carriage (Passengers and Baggage) exonerate the petitioner Airline from any liability, even if any representation is made by an agent or employee of the petitioner airline in the matter of travel documents, visa requirements or other countries., In these circumstances, the impugned order suffer from material irregularity and illegality and merits to be set aside.

IN the light of aforesaid judgment and IATA General Conditions, petitioner was not liable for any deficiency on the ground of not allowing complainant for travel by Air Mauritius authorities from Mauritius to Reunion Island and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint even without impleading Air Mauritius as OP and learned State Commission further committed error in enhancing compensation and dismissing appeal of petitioner and revision petition is to be allowed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by petitioner is allowed and order dated 27.11.2008 passed by Delhi State Commission in Appeal Nos. A -07/672 and A -07/677 Emirates Airlines Vs. Mr. Desraj Malhotra and Anr. and Mr. Desraj Malhotra Vs. Emirates Airlines and Anr. and order of District Forum dated 27.07.2007 in OC/1702/04 Desraj Malhotra Vs. M/s. Emirates Airlines and Anr. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.