At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN
By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. V.V. JOSE
For the Appellant: K.G. Mohandas Pai, Advocate. For the Respondents: --------
S.S. Satheesachandran: President
Complainant is the appellant. Appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram in CC.92/16 dismissing the complaint of appellant.
2. Appellant with his wife booked two flight tickets through first respondent for journey from Cochin to Newyork. On his enquiry, according to appellant, first respondent informed that no British transit
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
visa was required though the flight booked had to pass through London Airport. However, at the check in counter opposite parties 3 and 4 refused them permission to travel since transit visa was not endorsed in the passport. Complainant was forced to take fresh tickets for travelling in Emirates Airlines incurring expenditure of Rs.97,000/-. He, therefore, filed the complaint claiming refund of the sum expended for booking fresh tickets with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. First opposite party separately and the others jointly filed versions resisting the claims of appellant refuting the complainant’s case of enquiry over transit visa. First opposite party contended that complainant was interested only in purchasing tickets at the lowest price and there was no deficiency of service on its part. It was look out of the complainant to carry proper documents including the obtaining of transit visa and for which first opposite party cannot be blamed. Opposite parties 2,3 & 4 contended that except travellers holding U.S permanent card obtained on or after 21.4.98 others travelling through U.K. have to possess transit visa. Wife of the complainant did not possess a transit visa and she was therefore refused permission, according to these opposite parties.
3. Evidence consisted only of documentary evidence, Exts.A1 to A7 tendered by the complainant. District Forum appreciating the materials concluded that there was no deficiency of service by any of the opposite parties and claim for refund and compensation by complainant in the facts of the case is not allowable. In that view, the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved complainant has preferred this appeal.
4. Appeal coming up for admission we heard the counsel for the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the first opposite party, travel agency, through which air tickets were purchased was culpable in misleading the complainant and thus causing financial loss apart from mental agony. District Forum went wrong in not allowing complaint at least against first opposite party is the submission of the counsel urging for admitting the appeal on the file of the Commission.
6. Perusing the Order of the forum we find analyzing the facts and circumstances and also materials produced it has come to the conclusion that opposite parties 3 and 4 prevented the complainant and his wife from travelling in their airlines since the complainant’s wife did not possess a transit visa to travel through U.K. As per U.K. emigration Regulation all travellers passing through U.K except those holding U.S permanent resident card issued on or after 21.4.98 should possess transit visa is the case of the opposite parties 2 to 4, which, infact, is not disputed. When that being so, as rightly observed by the district Forum, there was justification on the part of opposite parties 3 and 4 in refusing permission to complainant’s wife to travel with him without having a transit visa as required by regulations. Case against first opposite party imputing deficiency of service is built upon the allegation that the complainant before purchase of tickets enquired whether transit visa was required and it was answered in the negative. First opposite party has refuted that allegation and, still, complainant did not mount the box to swear in support of his case. There was nothing on record to show that the complainant made any enquiry to first opposite party over the need for having a transit visa to travel through U.K. So the allegation imputed against first opposite party by complainant remained as such without any proof. In the circumstances the district Forum rightly and correctly found that the complaint is devoid of merit and accordingly it was dismissed.
7. We find that the challenge against the order of district Forum is meritless and, therefore, the appeal is not liable to be admitted.
Appeal is dismissed as not admitted.