MANOJ PAUL Vs. GULF AIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Manoj Paul has filed the present complaint under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') averring therein that the complainant was booked on a confirmed ticket for 5th November, 1998 by Gulf Airlines, New Delhi - Abu Dhabi - Frankfurt (Germany) by Flight No. GF 131 which was to leave New Delhi at 6.45 a. m. on 5.11.1998. It is stated that when the complainant reached the GF Checking Counter, Shri Praveen Yadav (opposite party No.3), an employee of opposite party No.1, at the IGI Airport threatened that the complainant would not be permitted to board the flight unless the complainant paid to said Shri Praveen Yadav a bribe of US $ 1000 on the ground that the passport of the complainant was stated to be a forged document. It is stated that said Shri Praveen Yadav (O. P. No.3) despite all persuasion and explanation stuck to his stand and did not allow the complainant to board the flight. It is stated that the father of the complainant filed written complaint with the Airport Manager who requested that the issue be not raised with the higher authorities and the complainant would be sent on the next Gulf Air Flight, leaving on 6th November, 1998. It is stated that even on 6th November, 1998 the complainant was not accommodated in that flight. It is stated that it was on 7th November, 1998 that the complainant boarded the Gulf Air Flight for Frankfurt via Abu Dhabi, which was a scheduled stop.

(2.) It is further stated that after the scheduled stop at Abu Dhabi when the complainant along with other passengers was proceeding to board the flight to Frankfurt, the Gulf Air Officers there at Abu Dhabi Airport asked the complainant to step aside and did not allow him to board that flight. It is stated that this time too the reason for not allowing the complainant to board the flight was that the officers of Gulf Air at Abu Dhabi also suspected the passport of the complainant to be forged. It is stated that the complainant answered all the queries at length. It is stated that after illegal and tortuous detention for 24 hours without food, the officers of Gulf Airlines instead of allowing the complainant to proceed to Frankfurt, put him on the flight back to New Delhi on 9th November, 1998 at 12.35 o'clock in the night. It is stated that on reaching back the complainant lodged a written complaint regarding the whole incident with the Airport Manager on 12th November, 1998. It is stated that the refusal of the Gulf Air staff in denying the complainant permission, inspite of confirmed ticket and valid VISA and valid passport to proceed to Frankfurt amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs.19,10,955/- jointly and severally together with pendente lite and future interest along with cost of litigation.

(3.) Notice of the complaint, filed by the complainant, Shri Manoj Paul was issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties, resisting the claim of the complainant, have filed a joint reply/written version. In the reply/written version filed on behalf of the opposite parties it is stated that on 5th November, 1998 the complainant was denied boarding by opposite party No.3 in the course and discharge of official duties and not out of negligence, inadvertence or any malice towards the complainant. It is stated that the contract of carriage of the complainant was governed by the General Condition of Carriage for Passengers and Baggage stipulated by Gulf Air. It is stated that the complainant was booked to travel from Delhi to Frankfurt (Germany) on 5th November, 1998. It is further stated that for quite some time Germany had become heaven for asylum seekers and illegal immigrants i. e. passengers travelling on fake documents and as such German Government had become very strict and if any passenger was found to be seeking to enter Germany illegally, not only that passenger was denied entry but was also detained without timelimit and upon release of such passenger from detention, he was liable to be deported by the airlines by which such passenger had travelled at the cost of that airline. It is stated that in such an eventuality a heavy fine is also imposed upon the airline ranging from DM 2000 to DM 20000. It is stated that in the above circumstances it had become imperative for every airlines to check the bona fides of the passengers, travelling to that country (Germany) and deny boarding to all passengers who did not appear to be holding valid documents or who were inconsistent and could not substantiate the purpose of their travel to Germany. It is stated that opposite party No.3 works under the overall supervision of opposite party No.2 and had been appointed by opposite party No.1 as a Security Officer with the primary duty to identify the passengers who were likely to be denied entry on arrival in Germany.