AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS single order shall dispose of two revision petitions as detailed in the head-note above and a copy of the same may be placed in each file.
THESE two revision petitions are concerning the consumer complaint filed by Dr. Rabindra Nath Pati who had planned to travel by British Airways from India to Philadelphia, USA and back and purchased air ticket for the said travel from Swosti Travels. The petitions have been filed against the impugned order dated 26.12.2007, passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 287/2006, "British Airways versus Rabindra Nath Pati and Anr. " and FA No. 568/2006 "Rabindra Nath Pati versus M/s. Swosti Travels and Anr. " These appeals were made against the order dated 07.02.2006 passed by the District Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar, Orissa in Consumer Complaint No. 348/2004, filed by Dr. Rabindra Nath Pati complainant against Swosti Travels and British Airways. The facts of the case are that the complainant Rabindra Nath Pati was invited by Penn State University, Pennsylvania, United States of America to attend the Indigenous Knowledge Conference - 2004 which was to take place from May 27 to 29, 2004 in USA. He applied for getting a visa to the US Consulate at Kolkata, indicating that he wanted to stay in USA for two weeks. He purchased ticket for his travel from M/s. Swosti Travels (OP No. 1) for flying in British Airways ''to and fro '' flight on payment of Rs.62,992/-. He proceeded from New Delhi to USA on 24.05.2004 by British Airways flight. According to the complainant, his visa was valid upto six months as a short-term scholar. After completion of the programme in USA, he came to Philadelphia airport on 22.06.2004 to board the British Airways flight to come back to India. However, the British Airways did not permit him to board the Aircraft on the ground that his Visa for stay in USA stood expired on 29.05.2004 and since he had no valid visa for stay in USA, he was supposed to obtain a transit visa for flying through U.K. The complainant, having been denied by the British Airways to board the flight, requested for refund of the balance cost of the ticket, so as to enable him to purchase another ticket in some other airlines, where such transit visa was not required. The British Airways, however, replied that the refund could be given only at the place of booking in India. The complainant had to stay in USA for more time and according to him, he had to borrow money from some friends as well as spend from his own sources. He purchased the return ticket by Alitalia Flight and reached India on 17.07.2004. In the meantime, he even tried to get a transit visa from the British Consulate in USA, but the said visa was refused by the British Consulate General vide their letter dated 14.07.2004. The complainant then filed the consumer complaint in question demanding a sum of Rs.14.49 lacs as compensation. The District Forum vide order dated 07.02.2005 allowed the complaint and directed the British Airways to refund the cost of return ticket, i.e., Rs.31,496/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- for cost of living from 22.06.2004 to 16.07.2004 in USA and in addition, to pay another sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. Against this order, two appeals, as detailed above, were filed before the State Commission - one by M/s. British Airways and the other by the complainant, Dr. Rabindra Nath Pati. Vide impugned order, the State Commission modified the order passed by the District Forum and directed the British Airways to pay a total sum of Rs.72,896/- to the complainant by 28.02.2008. The said sum included the balance price of the return ticket amounting to Rs.31,496/- and the price of the ticket for Alitalia Airways amounting to Rs.41,400/-. It is against this order that the present revision petitions have been filed.
AT the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for M/s. British Airways stated that the complainant had got invitation from the Penn State University to visit USA for a conference, but visa to visit USA was granted to him by the US Consulate at Kolkata for a period of three days only, i.e., from 27th May 2004 to 29th May 2004, based on Form No. DS2019, sent by the University to the complainant. The complainant in his application for Visa had stated that he wanted to spend two weeks in USA. Learned counsel argued that when the complainant reached the Philadelphia airport on 22.06.2004 for taking the return flight of British Airways, it was pointed out to him that he did not have a valid permission to stay in USA. Consequently, since the flight of British Airways was to pass through UK, he was required to have a Direct Access Transit Visa (DATV) for travelling through U.K. He was, therefore, not allowed to board the British Airways flight back home. The complainant tried to obtain visa from the Consulate General of UK in USA, but the said Visa was not granted to him. The complainant purchased return ticket from another International Carrier Alitalia and returned to India on 17.07.2004. On his return, the permissible amount of Rs.2,486/- was refunded to him. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the British Airways.
THE learned counsel for the complainant Rabindra Nath Pati argued on the other hand, that the period mentioned on the Visa implies that the complainant could enter USA any time during that period. The length of his stay in USA is decided by the US immigration authorities at the Port of entry in USA. He went to USA on 24.05.2004 and was permitted to stay there for a period of six months and hence it was wrong to say that he did not have valid visa to stay in USA beyond 29.05.2004. Regarding Visa in UK, learned counsel stated that the complainant did not want to visit UK and hence there was no question for getting any Visa for U.K. He wanted to travel only from USA to India and if the British Airways Carrier flies through U.K., it does not mean that any Visa for U.K. is required. Further, the ticket for travel to USA had been issued to the complainant after checking all the particulars by the British Airways. At that stage, they could have pointed out if there was any deficiency in his travel documents. Learned counsel further invited our attention to the written statement filed by the British Airways before the District Forum in which they have clearly stated in paragraph 5 that "it is worthwhile mentioning that the validity of the period of Visa is given on arrival in the US. "
LEARNED counsel stated that the complainant had to suffer huge mental harassment and inconvenience and had to spend money from his own resources for his overstay in USA, and he should be properly compensated for the treatment given to him by the British Airways. Learned counsel mentioned that the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum should be modified and the complainant should be allowed compensation of Rs.14.49 lakh as requested through his complaint.
WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The facts as admitted by both the parties are that the complainant Rabindra Nath Pati got an invitation from Penn State University for attending conference in USA and for that purpose, form DS2019 was issued by the University to him for obtaining exchange visitor J-1 Visa from the US authorities in India. It has been stated in the said Form that it covers the period from 27.05.2004 to 29.05.2004. The complainant applied for Visa at US Consulate in Kolkata and obtained the same. He had mentioned in his application that he wanted to stay in US for two weeks. Thereafter, the British Airways after checking the travel documents, issued a ticket to him which indicated very clearly that his return flight is booked on 22.6.2004. Moreover, he is stated to have travelled to USA on 24.05.2004 which was before the period of 27.05.2004 to 29.05.2004 making it clear that he had valid permission to enter USA even before 27.05.2004. Had the British Airways felt that stay in USA beyond 29.05.2004 was not in order, they should have refused to issue him the return ticket for 22.06.2004. When the complainant came to the Philadelphia Airport on 22.06.2004 as scheduled, he was stopped by the British Airways from boarding the flight on the ground that his stay in USA beyond 29.05.2004 was unauthorised and hence he required a Direct Access Travel Visa (DATV) for U.K. because the aircraft was to pass through U.K. The case of the complainant is that the period of 3 days from 27.05.2004 to 29.05.2004 is for the purpose of entry only and the duration of stay in USA is determined by the immigration authorities on arrival in USA. This fact has been admitted in the written statement filed by the British Airways as well that the validity of the period of Visa is given on arrival in the United States. Moreover it is absolutely clear that if his stay in USA beyond 29.05.2004 was unauthorised, the concerned authorities in that country would have definitely taken action against him in accordance with their laws. The contention of the British Airways personnel at the Philadelphia Airport on 22.06.2004 is, therefore, without any basis that he did not have valid permission to stay in USA at that time. In so far as the Direct Access Transfer Visa (DATV) for U.K. is concerned, the learned counsel for the British Airways stated that Dr. Rabindra Nath Pati was required to have the DATV, since the aircraft was to pass through U.K. He required such visa because he did not have valid permission to stay in USA beyond 29.05.2004. This issue should have been examined by the British Airways at the time of issuance of ticket in India to the complainant or before his departure from India. If they felt that the complainant was required to leave USA back home on or before 29.05.2004, they should have refused to issue him ticket for return travel for 22.06.2004. Evidently, this is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the British Airways for which the complainant had to suffer a lot of pain and harassment. The bonafides of the complainant are quite clear that he came to Philadelphia Airport on 22.06.2004 for boarding the flight back home under the impression that he had the valid documents to travel but the British Airways refused to fly him back.
THE facts of the case make it abundantly clear that the complainant had to undergo a lot of mental and physical harassment, because he had to stay in USA for a further period of 3 to 4 weeks and he could return to India only on 17.07.2004 and that also through the flight of another airline Alitalia. Had there been any problem with his travel documents, then Alitalia or any other airline would not have allowed him to travel on their ticket. It is clear, therefore, that British Airways have caused undue harassment and mental agony to the complainant without any reason and without any fault of the complainant.
THE District Forum in their order dated 07.02.2005 directed the British Airways to refund the cost of return ticket of Rs.31,486/- and an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of living in USA from 22.06.2004 to 16.07.2004 and ordered to pay another sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony etc. and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. The complainant as well as Opposite Party filed appeals against that order and vide impugned order, the learned State Commission allowed him a total sum of Rs.72,896/- only which included the balance of the return ticket at Rs.31,496/- and the cost of Alitalia ticket at Rs.41,400/-, in total, a sum of Rs.72,896/-. We, however, do not agree with the line of argument taken by the learned State Commission, in so far as the value of the ticket is concerned. The complainant cannot be given the benefit of getting refund for the unused British Airways ticket and also allowed the value of new ticket purchased from Alitalia. At best, he can be awarded one of these amounts, otherwise it will amount to a double benefit. We, therefore, feel that an amount of Rs.41,400/- which is higher of the two amounts should be awarded to the complainant for the money spent on tickets.
FURTHER , in so far as, the mental agony, harassment and cost of stay is concerned, it is observed that the complainant had to stay in the US for a further period of 24 days without any fault of his own and he suffered a lot for which he must be suitably compensated. The District Forum allowed him a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for over-stay in USA and another sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony / harassment etc. in addition to Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. The complainant, however, has demanded a total sum of Rs.14.49 lakh as compensation from the OP. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, we feel that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- should be awarded to the complainant for ticket, the expenses incurred for stay in USA and also as compensation for mental agony, harassment, etc. and we order accordingly. Out of the said payment, payment of Rs.41,400/- is to be made to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation. Both the revision petitions, therefore, stand disposed of and the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum stand modified as stated above with no order as to costs.