MANOJ PAUL vs GULF AIR

SHRI Manoj Paul has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') averring therein that the complainant was booked on a confirmed ticket for 5th November, 1998 by Gulf Airlines, New Delhi - Abu Dhabi - Frankfurt (Germany) by Flight No. GF 131 which was to leave New Delhi at 6.45 a.m. on 5.11.1998. It is stated that when the complainant reached the GF Checking Counter, SHRI Praveen Yadav (opposite party No. 3), an employee of opposite party No. 1, at the IGI Airport threatened that the complainant would not be permitted to board the flight unless the complainant paid to said SHRI Praveen Yadav a bribe of US $ 1000 on the ground that the passport of the complainant was stated to be a forged document. It is stated that said SHRI Praveen Yadav (O.P. No. 3) despite all persuasion and explanation stuck to his stand and did not allow the complainant to board the flight. It is stated that the father of the complainant filed written complaint with the Airport Manager who requested that the issue be not raised with the higher authorities and the complainant would be sent on the next Gulf Air Flight, leaving on 6th November, 1998. It is stated that even on 6th November, 1998 the complainant was not accommodated in that flight. It is stated that it was on 7th November, 1998 that the complainant boarded the Gulf Air Flight for Frankfurt via Abu Dhabi, which was a scheduled stop.

IT is further stated that after the scheduled stop at Abu Dhabi when the complainant along with other passengers was proceeding to board the flight to Frankfurt, the Gulf Air Officers there at Abu Dhabi Airport asked the complainant to step aside and did not allow him to board that flight. IT is stated that this time too the reason for not allowing the complainant to board the flight was that the officers of Gulf Air at Abu Dhabi also suspected the passport of the complainant to be forged. IT is stated that the complainant answered all the queries at length. IT is stated that after illegal and tortuous detention for 24 hours without food, the officers of Gulf Airlines instead of allowing the complainant to proceed to Frankfurt, put him on the flight back to New Delhi on 9th November, 1998 at 12.35 o''clock in the night. IT is stated that on reaching back the complainant lodged a written complaint regarding the whole incident with the Airport Manager on 12th November, 1998. IT is stated that the refusal of the Gulf Air staff in denying the complainant permission, inspite of confirmed ticket and valid VISA and valid passport to proceed to Frankfurt amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 19,10,955/- jointly and severally together with pendente lite and future interest along with cost of litigation. Notice of the complaint, filed by the complainant, Shri Manoj Paul was issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties, resisting the claim of the complainant, have filed a joint reply/written version. In the reply/written version filed on behalf of the opposite parties it is stated that on 5th November, 1998 the complainant was denied boarding by opposite party No. 3 in the course and discharge of official duties and not out of negligence, inadvertence or any malice towards the complainant. It is stated that the contract of carriage of the complainant was governed by the General Condition of Carriage for Passengers and Baggage stipulated by Gulf Air. It is stated that the complainant was booked to travel from Delhi to Frankfurt (Germany) on 5th November, 1998. It is further stated that for quite some time Germany had become heaven for asylum seekers and illegal immigrants i.e. passengers travelling on fake documents and as such German Government had become very strict and if any passenger was found to be seeking to enter Germany illegally, not only that passenger was denied entry but was also detained without timelimit and upon release of such passenger from detention, he was liable to be deported by the airlines by which such passenger had travelled at the cost of that airline. It is stated that in such an eventuality a heavy fine is also imposed upon the airline ranging from DM 2000 to DM 20000. It is stated that in the above circumstances it had become imperative for every airlines to check the bona fides of the passengers, travelling to that country (Germany) and deny boarding to all passengers who did not appear to be holding valid documents or who were inconsistent and could not substantiate the purpose of their travel to Germany. It is stated that opposite party No. 3 works under the overall supervision of opposite party No. 2 and had been appointed by opposite party No. 1 as a Security Officer with the primary duty to identify the passengers who were likely to be denied entry on arrival in Germany.

It is stated that on 5th November, 1998 the complainant approached the checking counter and when opposite party No. 3, the Security Officer, contacted the complainant, the complainant could not give satisfactory answer to the various questions put to him regarding his purpose of visit to Germany. It is stated that in view of inconsistent answers given by the complainant, opposite party No. 3 in his judgment exercised the right of the carrier to refuse carriage for reasons of safety and in order to comply with the applicable laws, regulation and orders of that country (Germany) and denied boarding to the complainant.

IT is stated that in view of the doubtful appearance of the documents of the complainant, the complainant was denied boarding on 5th November, 1998 and was required to come again on 7th November, 1998. IT is stated that the time in between was utilized by opposite party No. 1 in ascertaining from German Embassy, New Delhi about the genuineness of the ''VISA'' issued in favour of the complainant. IT is stated that though the complainant was asked to come on 7th November, 1998 yet the complainant requested that he would take a chance on 6th November, 1998. IT is stated that the complainant was told in clear-cut terms that he could take a chance but the flight on 6.11.1998 was full. IT is stated that on 6th November, 1998 the complainant came to the airport but as anticipated he could not be accommodated on the flight on 6th November, 1998. The complainant was duly checked in for flight GF 133 on 7th November, 1998 and he in that flight commenced his journey from Delhi to Frankfurt via Abu Dhabi. It is stated that at Abu Dhabi the passengers are again checked by the ''Fraud Detecting Agency'', an independent organization. It is stated that it appears that the complainant failed to respond properly to the questions/queries which were put to him by the concerned officials and also failed to convince them about his bona fides with the result that he was deported from Abu Dhabi. It is stated that the opposite parties do not have any control or authority over the Fraud Detecting Agency at Abu Dhabi who had deported the complainant back from Abu Dhabi to Delhi.

THE allegation that the opposite party No. 3 demanded an illegal gratification has been specifically denied. It is stated that the complaint, filed by the complainant, is frivolous and deserves to be dismissed. The complainant filed a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the opposite parties, controverting the pleas taken by the opposite parties and reiterating the averments made in the complaint. The parties have adduced evidence by means of affidavits. The complainant Shri Manoj Paul has filed his own affidavit dated 13th August, 2001 by way of evidence. On behalf of opposite parties the affidavits of Shri Anwar Shaban, Airport Manager of opposite party No. 1 and that of Shri Praveen Yadav, opposite party No. 3 have been filed. The parties have also filed written submissions.

WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record, including the written submissions filed on behalf of both the parties. On the basis of material on record it is not in dispute that the complainant-Shri Manoj Paul had purchased a confirmed air ticket from Gulf Airlines (opposite party No. 1) for performing journey from New Delhi to Frankfurt via Abu Dhabi on 5th November, 1998. It is also not in dispute that on 5th November, 1998, for the purpose of performing that journey, the complainant reached the Gulf Air checking counter but was not permitted to board the flight and it was on 7th November, 1998 that the complainant was allowed to board the Gulf Air Flight from Delhi to Frankfurt via Abu Dhabi. It is also not in dispute that the complainant was not allowed to continue his journey from Abu Dhabi to Frankfurt and was deported back from Abu Dhabi to New Delhi.

THE only question requiring consideration in the present complaint is as to whether can it be stated that in the given facts was there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. As per the allegations of the complainant, the complainant was not allowed to board the flight on 5th November, 1998 by opposite party No. 3 who demanded illegal gratification of US $ 1000 and on refusal to pay the above said illegal gratification opposite party No. 3 did not allow the complainant to board the flight. Opposite party No. 3 Shri Praveen Yadav has filed his own affidavit specifically denying the above allegation. In the affidavit dated 3rd November, 2000 the above said opposite party has explained in detail the circumstances under which the complainant was not allowed to board the flight on 5th November, 1998. THE stand taken by opposite party No. 3 in his affidavit dated 3rd November, 2000 stands fully corroborated by the Airport Manager Mr. Anwar Shaban vide his affidavit dated of even date. THE age-old saying that "man may lie but not the circumstances" is aptly applicable to the present case. In the complaint it is stated by the complainant that on reaching Delhi, the complainant made a written complaint to the Airport Manager (opposite party No. 2) on 12th November, 1998. A copy of the above said document has been annexed by the complainant as Annexure VI. In the above said document not a word has been stated to the effect that opposite party No. 3 at the checking counter on 5.11.1998 had demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant. THE relevant portion of the above said document reads as under : "Dear Sir when I reached the GF checking counter then I had to face a lot of problems, about them I have described in another application. Your airlines staff did not allow me to travel by your Airlines. When I complained about it to your Station Manager in India then they called me to their office. Your Chief Security Officer interviewed me about one hour and after all he told me to come on the next day to get the flight to Frankfurt. I reached there at the correct time. He told me then on that day he cannt provide me any seat in the plane. So, I had to come back. When my father asked him for the Fax No. of your Bahrain Office then he said that there is no need for this he will arrange me a ticket for the next day in evening and didn''t give any Fax No. THEn he arranged a ticket for me numbered as 689410915648. THEn I reached to Abu Dhabi by this f]light."

On a bare perusal of the contents of the above portion of the above said document it is apparent that the same instead of supporting the case of the complainant, as a matter of fact, supports the version as given by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.

Now coming to the question of complainant''s being deported back from Abu Dhabi to New Delhi, the position is that the complainant was deported back from Abu Dhabi to New Delhi neither due to any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties nor due to any deficiency on the part of any of the functionaries of the opposite parties but on being checked by the Fraud Detecting Agency, deployed at Abu Dhabi Airport which is an independent organization over which the opposite parties have no control or authority. On a perusal of the contents of complaint dated 12th November, 1998 alleged to have been lodged by the complainant with the President and Chief Executive of the opposite party No. 1, it is apparent that the authorities at Abu Dhabi Airport were suspicious about the genuineness of the passport of the complainant and the purpose of the visit of the complainant to Frankfurt. The purpose of the visit has been stated by the complainant as business but in the above said document dated 12th November, 1998 the complainant himself has stated that when the authorities after questioning and examining the documents asked him as to why he had not obtained a student VISA, the complainant told them that student VISA was not obtained by him as German Embassy would have taken one or two months for that VISA and he did not have that much time. In view of the inconsistent answers given by the complainant to the concerned functionaries of opposite party No. 1 at IGI Airport on 5th November, 1998 and thereafter to the Fraud Detecting Agency at Abu Dhabi Airport the above said functionaries were fully justified in taking action which they had taken in the given facts. For the sufferings undergone by the complainant, it is the complainant who has to blame his own-self.

FOR the above reasons, in our opinion, in the given facts the complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and, therefore, no relief can be given to the complainant in the present complaint. The present complaint is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.