AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
DR. P. D. Shenoy, Presiding Member-Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
LEARNED Counsel argued at length. The complainant was a member of the Lufthansa Miles and More Membership Scheme under the frequent flier programme. It is not disputed that the complainant is a British citizen who does not require a visa for visiting the USA. The complainant had spent Rs. 3. 5 lakh towards her round-the-world trip on Lufthansa earlier, as a result of which she was awarded a ticket by Lufthansa with the following routes: (a) Mumbai-Singapore-Vancouver by Singapore Airlines; (b) Vancouver/san Francisco-Hong Kong-Singapore by United Airlines; and (c) Singapore-Mumbai by Singapore Airlines.
It is not disputed that the United Airlines is a Star Alliance Partner along with Lufthansa. Accordingly, a person who purchases tickets from Lufthansa can travel by United Airlines and vice versa. Before the issue of the ticket, the complainant''s passport was scanned by Lufthansa. The complainant found to her utter shock during her return trip that she could not travel to San Francisco as the United Airlines did not have the facility of machine scanning of the passport though, even with the naked eyes, one could see that it was a British passport exempting the complainant from the requirement of possessing a US visa. Further, the United Airlines also did not have the Notification which exempted the British nationals from possessing a US visa, which, in our opinion, is not a fault of the complainant/consumer.
The complainant had to pay 997. 61 Canadian dollars for her trip from Edmonton to Toronto to Hong Kong, apart from taxes to the tune of Rs. 8689 which she claimed in her complaint dated 4. 10. 2005 before the District Forum. The District Forum awarded the same along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as also Rs. 5000 as compensation and Rs. 2000 as costs. That order passed by the District Forum was confirmed by the State Commission in the Appeal filed by the petitioner herein.
LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower Fora had grossly erred in granting relief as this was a clear case of non-joinder of parties. The United Airlines was a necessary party and if any compensation was to be paid, it should be paid by the United Airlines. He also brought to our notice the Miles and More Membership Terms and Conditions (Pg. 33 of the Paper-book) wherein the last line of Clause 4. 2. 2. (Award Flights) reads as: "the flight taken as an award flight is subject to the operation carrier''s general conditions of carriage. " He submitted that in this case, the operating carrier was the United Airlines and according to Clause 2. 4. 6. (Award Conditions) "miles and More has no direct control over these companies, so that neither Lufthansa nor the respective joint operator may be held responsible for the unlimited availability of services from the partner company (e. g. flights, hotel stays, rental cars) and for proper performance of contracts. The general terms and conditions of the partner company concerned shall apply". The complainant has not sought unlimited services like hotel stay, rental cars or flights. Hence, this clause does not apply. Lastly, he brought to our notice the General Conditions (at Pg. 109 of the Paper-book) which read as under: 13. 1. 1. You are responsible for obtaining all required travel documents and visas and for complying with all laws, regulations, orders, demands and travel requirements of countries to be flown from, into or through which you transit. 13. 1. 2. We shall not be liable for the consequences to any passenger resulting from his or her failure to obtain such documents or visas or to comply with such laws, regulations, orders, demands, requirements, rules or instructions.
NOWHERE it is mentioned that the complainant was made aware of the general conditions before becoming a member of the Frequent Flier Programme. It is not the case of the petitioner that the complainant did not possess a valid travel document, namely, the passport. In our opinion, the consumer/complainant has fulfilled her responsibility of having a valid travel document, namely, the passport, which was in currency and had not expired. Secondly, it was a British passport which entitled the complainant to an exemption from obtaining a US visa. In such a case, there was no need for her to obtain any visa, once the passport was seen and scanned by Lufthansa before issuing the travel document. Lufthansa is a partner of United Airlines and, as a partner, is liable for all actions of United Airlines. As a partner, Lufthansa should not have abrogated the responsibility of the faults and deficiencies committed by their partner Airline of several years. Hence, we do not see any merit in the argument that the United Airlines should have been joined as a party to this case. The Airlines try to attract passengers/consumers by offering frequent flier programmes like Miles and More Membership Scheme, so as to wean away passengers from other airlines to their own. This is thus like a discount coupon and, hence, it is a clear-cut promise to provide future services for present payment.
IN view of the above analysis, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition which is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
HOWEVER, as a member of the Star Alliance, it would be open to Lufthansa to recover the expenditure incurred in this regard by taking appropriate action against the partner Airlines concerned. Revision Petition dismissed.