S.Pandian vs SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM

THESE nine complaints were filed by nine different people against the same opposite parties. The nine complainants had all travelled together on the basis of the tickets issued by the 1st opposite party. The allegations in the complaints are all the same, the contentions in the written version are also similar and the points for consideration are also the same in all the complaints. In these circumstances, all these complaints can be disposed of in one common order.

THE case of the complainants is that they purchased onward and return journey air tickets from Madras to Havana and back to Madras for business and pleasure trip, from the 1st opposite party through their agents 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. While issuing the tickets, according to the complainants, the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties checked the complainants'' visas, passports and documents relating to other formalities. THE opposite parties told them that the transit visas for London were not necessary for 24 hours for Indian passport holders. THE complainants left Madras on 10th December, 1996 as per the schedule to Bangkok. At Bangkok, on 12th December, they went to "SAS" ticketing counter to go to Havana through Copenhagen and London. THEre, the "SAS" Authorities told the complainants that they required London transit visas. But on enquiry they found that no such visas were necessary and that was informed to the SAS Authorities. Even though they accepted it the opposite parties misguided the complainants and forced them to stay at Bangkok for three days causing them huge expenses for lodging and boarding. On 14.12.1996 the SAS Authorities took the complainants to an Aeroflot aircraft. THE complainants refused to board that aircraft and requested the opposite parties to return their passports, visas and tickets for returning on 20th December. But with the help of the police the Airport Authorities forcibly pushed the complainants to the aircraft. THEy were treated as criminals at Bangkok Airport and they were not informed about their destination. THE aircraft dropped them at Moscow Airport and handed over the complainants'' documents to the Moscow Police Authorities. Only later they came to know that the aircraft was going to Havana. Only at Havana their travel documents were handed over to the complainants. As per the schedule, while returning, the complainants met the Cuban Airlines Authorities on 20.12.1996. THE passengers were kept in illegal confinement in a room for 26 hours and then they transported them to Moscow even against their will in the Aeroflot aircraft. THE complainants lost their personal belongings and reputation and image. On 26.12.1996 the Aeroflot Authorities transported the complainants to Delhi. On account of this conduct of the opposite parties and the Aeroflot Authorities the complainants were harassed and suffered physically and mentally. Alleging thus the complaints have been filed for directing the opposite parties to pay the ticket fares being Rs. 72,000/- each for travel from Madras to Havana and'' back to Madras, and Rs. 10 lakhs for physical and mental pain. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed a written version and the 3rd opposite parties has filed a separate written version.

The 1st and 2nd opposite parties would contend that there was no privity of contract between them and the complainants. The complainants have not hired or availed of the services of these opposite parties. Therefore, the complainants are not consumers vis-a-vis these opposite parties 1 and 2. Even from the documents filed by the complainants it is seen that one M/s. Oriental Exports had sought for the purchase of tickets in question from the 3rd opposite party and they had only made payments for the tickets. Since admittedly the complainants have not purchased the tickets, they have not hired or availed of the services of the opposite parties. The complainants cannot be deemed to be consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the "Act"). Therefore, the complaints are not maintainable in law. Even according to the complainants, the entire cause of action had arisen only at Bangkok or Havana and therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. It is denied that the opposite parties checked the complainants'' visas, passports, transit visas, etc. Only the IATA agents had done that. These opposite parties did not tell the complainants that the transit visa for London was not necessary. All Airlines have been given an express mandate to keep a close watch on the potential illegal immigrants. At Bangkok there was something that gave room for suspicion about the complainants. The Airlines Authorities wanted to be assured that the complainants had all the appropriate papers with them. The complainants were requested to stay at Bangkok until the doubts were clarified. Since on 11.12.1996 the 1st opposite party''s flight to Copenhagen was fully booked, the 1st opposite party had made alternative flight of Aeroflot which was to leave Bangkok to Havana via Moscow since in any event Copenhagen and London were only transit halts there could be no complaint with any such re-routing since the complainants would in any event be reaching Havana which was their ultimate destination. Apparently the complainants had been detained and deported by the Cuban Authorities and that might be because the complainants did not possess valid visa for Cuba. These opposite parties cannot be held responsible for the deportation of the complainants by the Cuban Immigration Authorities. Therefore, these opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount to the complainants and hence the complaints are liable to be dismissed.

THE 3rd opposite parties in their written version contended that since there were no allegations against them in the complaints, no relief can be granted against them. The points that arise for consideration are : (1) Whether the complaints are not maintainable as contended by the opposite parties 1 and 2 ? (2) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ? and (3) If so, what relief can be granted to the complainant ?

POINT No. 1 : It is the contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2 that there was no privity of contract between the complainants and themselves inasmuch as the complainants have not hired or availed of the services of them on payment of consideration. It is not in dispute that the tickets in which the complainants travelled were purchased by one M/s. Oriental Exports and only they have paid the consideration there for. It is not the case of the complainants that they purchased the tickets. This being the case, the contention of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties is that there was no privity of contract between the complainants and themselves and as such the complainants have not hired or availed of the services of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties and as such the complainants are not consumers vis-a-vis the opposite parties 1 and 2. In these circumstances it would appear clear that it was the Company viz., M/s. Oriental Exports which had availed of the services of the opposite parties on payment of consideration and not the complainants. That being the case, it is the said Company M/s. Oriental Exports which would be consumers vis-a-vis the opposite parties. It may be that the complainants had travelled or. the tickets purchased by that Company. But in the transaction in question the parties were only the said Company and the opposite parties and not the complainants. May be as the beneficiaries of the transaction the complainants are consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. But the question is whether the complainants can file the complaints. Section 12 of the Act deals with the manner in which a complaint can be filed. It reads as follows : "12. Manner in which complaint shall be made.-A complaint, in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum, by- (a) the consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or such service provided or agreed to be provided; (b) any recognised consumer association whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided is a member of such association or not; (c) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested; or (d) the Central or the State Government."

Clauses (b), (c) and (d) are not relevant to us now and we have to consider only Clause (a). As per this clause, the complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided, can be filed only by the consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered, or service provided or agreed to be provided. The user of the goods sold or agreed to be sold or a beneficiary of the services provided or agreed to be provided does not come within the ambit of this clause. In the present case, the Company viz., M/s. Oriental Exports have purchased the tickets on payment of consideration and therefore, the services were to be provided to them. If the complainants had travelled on the tickets issued by the opposite parties to the Company, they were only beneficiaries and as such they cannot maintain the complaints. It is important to note here that the main relief prayed for by the complainants is refund of the ticket fares of Rs. 72,000/- to each of them. They admittedly being not the persons who paid for the tickets, cannot ask for refund. It is also relevant to note here that for the reasons best known to the complainants, they have not disclosed the nature of the connection between them and the said Company M/s. Oriental Exports. In these circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the complaints are not maintainable. Point Nos. 2 and 3 : In view of our finding on Point No. 1, consideration of these points is not necessary. In the result, the complaints are dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs. Complaints dismissed.