Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
The Chairman, Austrian Airlines Group and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Ispat Industries Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.242 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 02/03/2012 in Complaint No.25/2007 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 1.3.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1, 4 to 6:Mr. Pallav Pandey, Advocate with Mr. Palash Singhal, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Deleted
IMPORTANT POINT
“For refusal to process the boarding passes, refund of cost of air tickets allowed.”
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 19 and 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 41 and 2(11)] – Air tickets – Deficiency in service – Refund of amount – Scope – Complainants No.2 to 6 booked flight tickets from appellant No.1 – They were to perform journey from Mumbai to Vienna and from Vienna to Pristine – After completing journey from Mumbai to Vienna, they reported to Austrian Airlines, but they were refused boarding passes on ground of not having valid travel documents – Complainant sought payment of Rs. 31,49,680/- towards air ticket compensation, damages etc. – State Commission allowed the complaint partly and directed the appellants to refund the cost of tickets of Rs. 6,19,680/- to complainants – Hence this appeal – Complainants suffered humiliation and Mental Trauma at Vienna Airport – Austrian Airlines if could have properly checked all requisites valid documents prior to issuing the boarding passes, the complainants would not have faced the difficulties – Thus, Austrian Airlines found responsible for the same due to their negligence – No illegality found in the impugned order.
Held: Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, Opposite Parties have filed the present Appeal before this Commission. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that there was no specific allegation regarding deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants. It was contended that the State Commission had not given any finding regarding liability of the Appellants for refund of the amount of air tickets to the Complainants.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants submitted that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants/Opposite Parties, as the Respondents/Complainants were not allowed by the staff of the Appellants to board their flight from Vienna to Pristine (Kosovo). Complainants Nos. 2 to 6 suffered cold and traumatic conditions at Vienna Airport for 30 hrs. and they were also not provided any boarding and lodging facility at the airport. Appellants issued the boarding pass after checking and verifying the necessary documents.
Admittedly, Complainants Nos. 2 to 6 were issued boarding passes by the Austrian Airlines at Mumbai after verification of necessary documents. State Commission observed that “the staff of the Austrian Airlines at Mumbai was also not aware of all rules & regulations regarding the documents required for entering into Kosovo.” Complainants Nos. 2 to 6 suffered humiliation and mental trauma at Vienna Airport. State Commission opined that “if the Austrian Airlines could have properly checked all the requisite valid travel documents prior to issuing the boarding passes the Complainants would not have faced the difficulties as narrated above. Hence in our opinion the OPs-Austrian Airlines are responsible for the same due to their negligence. State Commission found that there was contributory negligence on the part of both the Parties. It, therefore, partly allowed the Complaint.
In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the State Commission had rightly directed the Opposite Parties to refund the cost of ticket of Rs.6,19,680/- to the Complainants. State Commission had not granted any compensation to the Complainants. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference in the impugned order. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. (Paras 5 to 8)
Result: Appeal Dismissed.
ORDER
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—This Appeal has been filed by the Appellants against the order dated 02.03.2012 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (in short ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No.25/2007.
2. Facts of the case are that Respondents Nos. 2 to 6/Complainants Nos.2 to 6 booked flight tickets from Appellant No.1/Opposite Party No. 1. They were to perform journey from Mumbai to Vienna and then from Vienna to Pristine (Kosovo). After completing their journey from Mumbai to Vienna, Complainants Nos. 2 to 6 reported at the counter of Austrian Airlines for onward journey to Pristine, but the airline staff refused to process the tickets/boarding passes on the ground that they were not having required visa/valid travel documents. Their boarding passes issued at Mumbai were also taken away. Claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties/Appellants, Respondents/Complainants filed Consumer Complaint before the State Commission with following prayer: -
“i) Pass the order for payment of Rs.31,49,680/- against the opponents towards air tickets compensation, damages, etc. as detailed in the particulars of claim along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 10.06.2007 till realization of the amount;
ii) Cost of the proceedings may also be granted;
iii) Any other relief as may be deemed fit may also be granted.”
3. Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties on the ground of maintainability since it was filed by six Complainants under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, without prior permission of the Commission. Complainant No.1 was company and there was no Board resolution in the name of Mr. Anil Kumar, Power of Attorney holder. There were also disputed facts involved in the Complaint regarding availability of valid documents for travelling to Pristine (Kosovo) and those disputed facts could not be decided in summary proceedings before the Consumer Forum. As Complainant No.1- Company had hired services of the Opposite Parties for commercial purpose, the Complainants were not Consumers. On merits, Opposite Parties stated that the Complainants were negligent as they failed to produce requisite documents before the competent authority. Opposite Parties contended that the boarding passes were issued to Complainants Nos. 2 to 6 in good faith that they were holding requisite documents with them. Complainants did not produce any evidence regarding invitation from of Llamkos Steel LLC, Vushtri, Kosovo.
4. The State Commission after hearing Learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record passed the following order: -
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. Opponents are directed to refund the cost of tickets of Rs.6,19,680/- (Rs.1.236 x 5) to the Complainants.”
5. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, Opposite Parties have filed the present Appeal before this Commission. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that there was no specific allegation regarding deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants. It was contended that the State Commission had not given any finding regarding liability of the Appellants for refund of the amount of air tickets to the Complainants.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants submitted that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants/Opposite Parties, as the Respondents/Complainants were not allowed by the staff of the Appellants to board their flight from Vienna to Pristine (Kosovo). Complainants Nos. 2 to 6 suffered cold and traumatic conditions at Vienna Airport for 30 hrs. and they were also not provided any boarding and lodging facility at the airport. Appellants issued the boarding pass after checking and verifying the necessary documents.
7. Admittedly, Complainants Nos. 2 to 6 were issued boarding passes by the Austrian Airlines at Mumbai after verification of necessary documents. State Commission observed that “the staff of the Austrian Airlines at Mumba
