Radhey Shyam Sharma vs GULF AIR

BRIEF facts of the case are that Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma, complainant, is a qualified Engineer and he was sponsored by Al Dilly Tour & Travels Agency (UAE), Al Fujairah. He obtained a visitors visa and purchased a return ticket dated 7.9.1993 from the Gulf Air, hereinafter referred to as the opposite party. The complainant arrived at Al Fujairah (UAE) on 9.11.1993. It was discovered that the ticket issued by the opposite party at New Delhi had no coupon for the return flight from Al Fujairah to Muscat on way to New Delhi. He handed over his passport and return ticket to the Agency which had sponsored him to get the needful done. In January, 1994 the Sponsoring Agency produced the aforesaid ticket at the opposite party''s office at Al Fujairah. The opposite party, however, failed to return the ticket alongwith the necessary coupon from Al Fujairah to Muscat. The visitors visa expired on 16.2.1994. The complainant was unable to undertake the return journey in the absence of the aforesaid ticket. He was also without a job ever since his arrival in UAE. For over stay after the expiry of the visitors visa, he was taken into custody by the police and remained in jail besides a fine of 700 DH. According to the complainant, the above problems arose because of failure of opposite party to have issued an incomplete return ticket in the first place and to have failed to issue the necessary coupon from Al Fujairah to Muscat within a reasonable time forcing the complainant to over stay his visitors visa resulting in his prosecution conviction and sentence in jail. The above course of events completely broke the complainant and he had no source to turn for help. The return ticket was supplied by the opposite party only on 7.8.1994. The said ticket was again found to be incorrectly prepared and the correct ticket was provided on 1.9.1994 when the complainant travelled back. Legal notice dated 6.9.1994 was got issued by the complainant and the present complaint instituted on 17.10.1994 claiming 1,70,000 DH equivalent to Rs. 14.45 lacs (1 DH being Rs. 8.05) at the rate of Foreign Exchange at the relevant time) alongwith interest @ 24%.

IN the written version filed by the opposite party, it was stated that the complainant reported the loss of the coupon from Al Fujairah to Muscat on 18.1.1994. Immediately the General Sales Agent (GSA) took up the case for permission of the Competent Authority located at Bahrain. The permission having been received, the coupon in relation to the lost coupon was prepared and was ready to be issued on 20th January, 1994 within two days of the report of loss. The complainant, however, did not collect the said coupon and the same could not be delivered to him as he had not left any con tact address. Again in the second week of February, 1994, someone on behalf of the complainant contacted the District Sales Manager to issue a ticket in relation to the lost coupon without disclosing the background including the report made earlier on 18.1.1994. The District Sales Manager obtained fresh authorisation and the ticket was ready for being delivered on 13.2.1994 but the same again remained unutilised. A third time, the opposite party''s office was contacted on 10.8.1994 and finally the ticket issued on 23.8.1994 was delivered to the complainant and he returned on 1.9.1994.

In the rejoinder, the complainant stated that part of the cause of action having arisen in Delhi, where the return ticket was issued without coupon relating to one sector of the flight, the Forums in Delhi had jurisdiction. The various facts pleaded in the written statement were controverted. It was further stated that the opposite party issued an alternative coupon dated 7.8.1994 from Abu Dhabi to A1 Fujairah and not from Al Fujairah to Muscat. This was apparently wrong as the coupon to be issued was to be from Al Fujairah to Muscat and not from Abu Dhabi to Al Fujairah. For further over stay, the complainant was again taken into custody and he suffered imprisonment for another one month.

ON behalf of the complainant, the detailed affidavit of the above facts has been filed by the complainant himself. ON behalf of the opposite party, the affidavit of Mr. Jamal Al Atarthy, Manager, Northern India, Gulf Air Co., New Delhi has been filed. We have heard the complainant and Mr. M. Wadhwani Advocate, for the opposite party and have carefully gone through the records. The categorical stand of the opposite party in the written version is that when it was brought to the notice of the opposite party that the coupon for the return journey from Al Fujairah to Muscat was missing, the alternative ticket was prepared without any loss of time within two days but the same was neither collected by the complainant nor the complainant had left any contact address so that the same could be delivered to him. In other words, the complainant was himself responsible for the delay in collecting the alternative ticket. In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, it has not been stated that the complainant contacted the opposite party after reporting the fact that the coupon for return journey from Al Fujairah to Muscat was not there in the ticket issued to him from New Delhi nor had left any contact address so that the necessary ticket could be delivered to him. What has been stated about the report dated 18.1.1994 equally applies regarding the report made in second week of February, 1994. Again alternative ticket had been prepared but the complainant failed to collect the same. The validity of the visitors visa expired on 16.2.1994 and the complainant was prosecuted for violating the law and over-staying after the expiry of the visitors visa. The hardship undergone by the complainant, though extremely unfortunate was, thus, the result of complainant''s own creation.

WE are, however, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Wadhwani that the coupon from A1 Fujairah to Muscat appears to have been removed by the complainant himself to delay his departure from UAE as he had failed to find a gainful employment which took the complainant to UAE. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to accept that necessary coupon from Al Fujairah to Muscat had been issued to the complainant and he had removed the same in order to prolong his stay. The opposite party could lead evidence to show that in the first place such a coupon had, in fact, been issued, secondly the complainant clearly knew about the expiry of visitors visa on 16.2.1994. He stood to gain nothing by over-staying. In fact, he landed himself in difficulty, was arrested by the police and remained in jail for over-staying in the country after expiry of the visitors visa. WE do not think that it is consistent with the probabilities of the case that the complainant would remove a coupon at the risk of his liberty and spend time in jail. A perusal of the visitors visa Annexures ''C'' & ''D'', it has been expressly provided that employment is prohibited for the reason that it was a visitors visa valid only for a period of two months from the date of issue/entry into the country. In other words, the complainant very well knew that he could not take up employment on mere visitors visa. What appears to have happened is that the Sponsoring Agency appears to have let down the complainant by failing to secure the work permit and gainful employment and the complainant has found the opposite party as a convenient target to make the claim. For these reasons, we find no merit in the claim. The complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of the order be conveyed to the parties. Complaint dismissed.