GOPINATH K DESHPANDE Vs. ALITALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant was the complainant before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (hereafter 'the State Commission') alleging deficiency in service against M/s Alitalia and M/s Gupta Travels, the two opposite parties (O Ps).

(2.) (i) The case of the Appellant was that he travelled by OP 1 airline from Mumbai on 8th October 2001 and was to return on 4th November 2001. The scheduled routing was Mumbai-Milan-Newark-Milan-Mumbai. However, while in the USA, he went to Chicago and requested re-scheduling of his return flight from Newark, USA to 8th November 2001 instead of 4th November 2001. After follow-up with the office of OP 1 at Chicago on four successive days, he claimed to have received a confirmation for his seat for the return journey from (Newark to Mumbai via Milan) on 8th November 2001. Unfortunately, at the Newark airport, the staff of OP 1 informed him that the flight to Milan was already full and he could not be accommodated despite the confirmation he had received from the Airlines office. The Appellant/ complainant and three other passengers were finally put on board flight No. AZ-0645 from Newark to Rome with the assurance by the OP 1 staff that another flight No. AZ-1022 would take the Appellant and other similarly placed passengers to Milan and from Milan the complainant would be able to catch the scheduled flight AZ-770 for Mumbai. When the Appellant/ complainant and three others reached Rome by flight No. AZ-0645, they were asked to board flight No. AZ-1022 for Milan after passing through security check. The security staff at Rome, however, took away the passports, tickets and boarding cards of the Appellant and other similarly placed passengers on the ground that they did not possess Italian visa which was necessary for them to travel from Rome to Milan by flight No. AZ-1022. This important requirement was not intimated by the staff of OP 1 at Newark. As a result, the Appellant was handed over to the immigration officials and placed in the custody of the local Police. The Police and the immigration staff at Rome allegedly misbehaved with him and he was deprived of food and water. The Appellant was wrongfully detained for about 24 hours by the airport Police at Rome. The Appellant and other co-passengers were finally taken to board flight AZ-1022 under Police custody and at Milan too they were similarly put on board AZ-770 under Policy custody. At Mumbai, he was subjected to detailed questioning because of an entry of deportation and allowed to go home after four-and-a-half hours, that too without his baggage. He finally received his baggage after two days in Mumbai.

(3.) In its written version, OP 1 denied that it had confirmed the availability of seat for the Appellant on the Newark-Milan flight for the journey re-scheduled from 04.11.2001 to 08.11.2011. The fax message dated 24.10.2001 of OP 1 was not a confirmation of availability of seat on the flight AZ-607 departing Newark on 08.11.2001. As the Appellant insisted on travelling from Newark to Milan on 08.11.2001, he was put on board the Alitalia flight AZ-770 from Newark to Rome as an alternative arrangement. Since he did not possess Italian visa for travel from Rome to Milan in order to catch his scheduled flight from Milan to Mumbai, he was detained and questioned by the local immigration and Police officials in accordance with the customary law of Italy. The OP Airlines was not responsible for any inconvenience that might have been caused to the Appellant in this process. OP 1 also stated that it had explained this position to the Appellant/complainant in its letter dated 25.01.2002 and offered to reimburse the complainant the cost of the Newark - Mumbai fare.