RAVNEET SINGH BAGGA Vs. KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To attend his business commitments at New York on 18th October, 1991 the appellant booked his passage through the respondent No. 1 Airlines and as he could not reach in time allegedly on account of negligence and deficiency in service of the said respondent, he filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "National Commission") praying therein for payment of US $ 76,000 or the equivalent thereof in INR with interest @ 24% per annum from 18th October, 1991 to the date of the filing of the petition as also pendente lite and future interest at the same rate till realisation. He also claimed Rs. 5 lacs with interest, both pendente lite and future @ 24% per annum towards damages for an emotional distress, nervous shock, pain and suffering and US $ 450 or equivalent thereof in INR together with interest both pendente lite and future @ 24% per annum till realisation towards medical and transportation expenses. The claim was made not only against the KLM Airlines but also against the Trans World Airlines which was impleaded as respondent No. 2. The complaint was dismissed by the National Commission vide the order impugned in this appeal. The order of the National Commission is alleged to be against law, facts and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the prevalent practice of carrying the passengers in the Airlines.

(2.) The facts, as alleged by the appellant, in his complaint are that he is a partner of M/s. B.R. Exports, a firm based at Jaipur which is engaged in the import of rough emeralds and export of cut and polished emeralds jewellery. On 4th October, 1991 M/s. Mian Teck Jewellery, Bangkok is stated to have placed an order upon the complainant for the supply of 16,000 Carats of cut and polished emeralds which was to be exhibited at a Jewellery Exposition Fair. It was stipulated that any orders placed during exhibition for the emerald jewellery would be executed by the complainant's firm. M/s. Real Gems, New York vide a letter dated 2nd October, 1991 informed the complainant that the samples were available which could be inspected at their office at New York till closing on 18th October, 1991. The complainant, upon checking for the first available flight to New York, was informed by his travel agent that the earliest available flight was KLM Flight No. KL-872 departing New Delhi at 05.25 hrs. on 18th October, 1991 with stop over at Amsterdam. The complainant was, however, told that he could catch the connecting flight KL-640 departing Amsterdam for New York at 1315 hrs. from Schiphol Airport which was to reach New York 1515 hrs. at JFK Airport. He was issued ticket for Delhi-Amsterdam-New York-Amsterdam-Delhi Sectors for which he paid a total fair of Rs. 25,719/-. He had applied for US visa through M/s. Delhi Express Travels, Travel Agents which was granted on 17th May, 1991 being valid for five years with multiple entries. On 18th October, 1991 the complainant reported at the KLM counter at Indira Gandhi International Air-port at New Delhi where his travel documents were checked. Finding no fault with any documents, the complainant was permitted to board KLM Flight No. KL 872 to Amsterdam. While checking-in at Delhi, the Complainant enquired from the LKM staff at the counter about the possibility of booking him in an earlier flight from Amsterdam to New York as he had an urgent business appointment there an wanted to reach before 1630 hrs. Appreciating his problem, the complainant was booked on TWA 815 departing Schiphol Airport at 1105 hrs. Amsterdam time and arriving at JFK Airport at 1310 hrs. He claims to have continued to be booked at KL 641 also to New York from Amsterdam. On reaching Amsterdam on 18th October, 1991 at 1015 hrs. local time, he approached the KLM counter to know the location of TWA counter because he had been booked on the TWA Flight No. TWA 815 as was confirmed at Delhi and for which appropriate sticker had been placed on his KLM Ticket. At the KLM counter the complainant was asked about his US visa. When shown, the lady attending the KLM counter is stated to have conceived suspicion about the genuineness of the visa requiring verification. The complainant submitted that there was no reason, justification or occasion for being subjected to verification procedure by KLM for the second time at Amsterdam because he had been cleared for travel at Delhi. The ground staff at Amsterdam was requested to institute proceedings for verification as expeditiously as possible but the said staff was wilfully and consciously negligent which, according to the complainant, constituted "deficiency in service" within the meaning of the Act entitling him to claim damages. There was delay of about three hours in the institution of verification procedure. He was booked on a return flight to Delhi leaving Amsterdam on Sunday the 20th October, 1991. He was virtually confined at the Airport and not permitted to go outside. The complainant then is stated to have contacted directly a senior official of the KLM at about 1300 hrs. and explained to him his predicament. The official examined the US Visa and found the same to be in order. He, however, observed as doubts have been expressed, he will follow the standard procedure of sending the passport of the appellant to the US Embassy at Amsterdam for verification which would take about three hours. He advised the complainant to return to the counter at 1600 hrs. When he returned back at the counter the complainant was informed that his Visa had been found valid and authentic. The complainant then sought and was placed on the first available KLM flight to New York being KL 643 which departed from Amsterdam at 1800 hrs. and reached New York at 2000 hrs. American time on the same date. On account of the exhaustion, both mental and physical, the complainant alleged that he developed 103 degree temperature during the flight and was subjected to extreme depression. On reaching New York, the complainant could not locate his baggage which had arrived before him. While waiting for his baggage, the complainant phoned up one of the partners of M/s. Real Gems at his residence and was informed that as the cost of retaining of consignment of 1,00,000 Carats of Brazilian Emeraid Roughs was prohibitively high they could not retain the parcel beyond that day, and that it had been sold to another buyer. On account of the acts of commission and omissions of the respondents, the appellant had to suffer the business loss besides being subjected to mental tension and torture. On his return the complainant addressed a letter dated 10th January, 1992 to respondent No. 1 stating all the relevant facts seeking an apology and compensation for the loss of business profits. He was informed vide letter dated 3rd February, 1992 that the respondent Airlines regretted the unfortunate experience undergone by the complainant and that the necessary investigation was to be conducted to ascertain the truth. On 18th March, 1992, the complainant was informed about the result of the investigation with apology and a cheque of Rs. 2,500/- as a goodwill gesture. The said cheque is claimed to have been received and deposited in his account in his absence. The appellant informed the respondent No. 1 that the cheque had been deposited in his absence and that the same was being adjusted under protest and without prejudice to his rights to institute appropriate legal proceedings.

(3.) In reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 it was submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant was totally misconceived which was liable to be dismissed. The allegations made in the complaint did not constitute any deficiency in service within the meaning of section 2(g) of the Act. It was contended that the staff of the first respondent at the Schiphol Airport at Amsterdam acted in accordance with the requirements to ensure the proper verification for security reasons for benefits of the passengers and the Aircraft. There was no mala fide intention or deliberate act on the part of the respondent No. 1 or its staff in undertaking the verification before allowing the complainant to board the Aircraft at Amsterdam. The ground staff is stated to have not made any allegations that the complainant's visa being forged and merely wanted to verify the visa as they had some doubts regarding the validity of the visa contained in the passport. The verification also became necessary because there were no confirmed tickets in the name of the respondent-one by TWA flight and the other by KLM flight. Immediately upon verification that the visa had been issued by the US Embassy validly which was authenticated, the complainant was allowed to travel by the next available flight to New York. There was a bona fide belief on the part of the KLM staff at Amsterdam that the verification of the complainant's visa was necessary and the staff acted on the basis of the said bona fide belief. One of the reason for apprehension in the minds of KLM staff at Amsterdam was that the photograph on the visa issued to the complainant was a photocopy of the photograph and not the original photograph and further that the TWA staff had refused to allow the appellant to board their flight on account of the suspicion about the visa. The suspicion was further strengthened because the complainant had two confirmed tickets by two Airlines as noted hereinabove. There was no breach on the part of the respondent and its staff in regard to verification of the visa either at the first instance at Delhi or at Amsterdam Airport. The complainant was stated to have not suffered any loss on account of his alleged inability to reach New York within the time.