GIRISH N.SHAH vs KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIR LINES

APPELLANTS were the complainants before the State Commission, where they had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part the respondents.

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants/complainants with a view to travel to Europe had purchased ticket with following itinerary : "8.6.1996 Ahmedabad to Muscat 9.6.1996 Muscat to Amsterdam 9.6.1996 Amsterdam to London 1.7.1996 London to Amsterdam 1.7.1996 Amsterdam to Dubai (10.25 a.m.) 1.7.1996 Dubai to Mumbai (by Flight No. 750 Cathay Pacific)"

Everything went as per schedule except that on the last leg of the itinerary, the complainants were denied boarding at Dubai Airport for which allegedly they did not get any help from local staff of the respondents and after working hard and undergoing constant strain and mental tension, they finally came back to Mumbai by Air India Flight after purchasing a fresh Business class ticket costing Rs. 37,600 from Dubai to Mumbai on 2.7.1996. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, a complaint was filed before the State Commission where the matter was contested by the respondent/opposite party and State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay Rs. 47,600 in all by way of compensation (Rs. 37,600 for purchasing of business class tickets of Air India flight from Dubai to Mumbai on 2.7.1996 + Rs. 10,000 as some token compensation for discomfort and inconvenience suffered by the complainants for 22 hours at Dubai Airport) alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from 30.7.1996 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs. 5,000. These payments were to be made within a period of 3 months failing which total amount shall carry interest @ 18% p.a. Not satisfied with these reliefs, this appeal has been filed before us for enhancement of compensation.

Upon issue of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. They are proceeded ex parte. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that while holding a confirmed ticket from Dubai to Mumbai by flight No. 750 of Cathay Pacific, appellants were ''denied-boarding'' on this flight. This at best can be said to be case of denied boarding but it is also a fact that even though ticket was issued by KLM but the Flight, whereby the boarding were denied to the complainant did not belong to them. It was ''Cathay Pacific'' as completely different and independent International Airlines who denied boarding to the complainants/appellants despite their holding a confirmed ticket. But despite strong objections taken by the respondents in the written version Cathay Pacific was not made a party. The agency issuing the ticket cannot be held responsible for any act of omission or commission on the part of International Carrier which is responsible for such an act of omission or commission. Non-joinder of Cathay Pacific clearly prejudices the case as no version as to under what circumstances, and under what condition Cathay Pacific denied boarding to the appellants despite their holding a confirmed ticket? We refrain from passing any judgment on the reliefs given by the State Commission as the respondents have not filed any appeal before us.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in the appeal for any enhancement of compensation as no deficiency can be fastened on the part of the respondents as it was not KLM who denied the boarding. In view of above, we see no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.