Passengers must prove deficiency of service to claim compensation from airlines.

1. The complainant in C.C. No. 503/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram (in short the District Forum) has filed this appeal against the order passed by the District Forum by which the complaint filed by him was dismissed.

2. The averments contained in the complaint are as follows: The complainant was a passenger of the opposite party, Emirates Airlines from Thiruvananthapuram to Detroit, USA (via) Dubai / Boston in USA on 20.7.2015 and he had booked the tickets for the journey. Since the flight took off from Thiruvananthapuram late the complainant was advised by the opposite party that he would not get the connecting flight from Dubai and he would be put up in a hotel in Dubai for one day and the complainant agreed to the same. On the next day the opposite party changed the route of journey of the complainant via Europe sector sending the complainant to Dubai / Amsterdam. The flight landed at Amsterdam at 2 p.m. and the complainant rushed to Delta Airlines departure gate and reached there at 2.20 p.m. He was refused entry since the Delta connecting flight was scheduled to take off at 3 p.m. In Amsterdam the opposite party had no ground staff to take care of transit passengers and the Delta connecting flight departed from Amsterdam at 8.45 p.m. instead of 3 p.m. on the next day. Complainant was stranded at the Amsterdam airport for 18 hours unattended, without food or medicines. The security officers of the Amsterdam airport confiscated the goods purchased by the complainant from Dubai, duty free. It is natural that flights get delayed due to unforeseen reasons but the passengers should be cared for. All the medicines of the complainant including insulin were damaged. The opposite party expressed regret for what had happened to the complainant in the reply to the letter sent by the complainant. The prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,39,948 and costs of the proceedings.

3. The opposite party filed version raising the following contentions: The statement of the complainant that the flight arrived at Amsterdam at 2 p.m. is false. The records of the opposite party shows that the flight from Dubai to Amsterdam arrived at Amsterdam at 1.30 p.m. and the Delta flight to Detroit was to depart at 3 p.m. Thus there was ample time of 1.30 hours for the complainant to board the Delta flight. The complainant failed to disclose that he was engaged in shopping and looking at the shops instead of going to the boarding gate and he thus missed the connecting flight at 3 p.m. Since the complainant arrived late at the boarding gate it was closed. Complainant could not be provided hotel accommodation as he did not have a Schengen Visa in order to exit the airport. So the complainant had to wait at the airport. Even though the complainant having been declared as a no show passenger was liable to have his ticket forfeited, as a gesture of goodwill and friendly customer relationship, the opposite party agreed to change the ticket of the complainant for travel on the next date without payment of any fees, which the complainant accepted and travelled accordingly. The opposite party does not know why the security / customs authorities at Amsterdam confiscated the goods purchased by the complainant from Dubai and the opposite party has no control over security / customs authorities in all countries. In the airport there was telephone facility and there are several shops where food was available to the complainant. The complainant has no case that he had no money with him to purchase food. The allegation that the medicines of the complainant got damaged is not correct. The complainant i