EMIRATES Vs. DESRAJ MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal Nos. A-07/672 & A-07/677 Emirates Airlines Vs. Mr. Desraj Malhotra & Anr. and Mr. Desraj Malhotra Vs. Emirates Airlines & Anr. by which while dismissing appeal of the OP, appeal filed by complainant was allowed and compensation granted by District forum was enhanced.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent No.1 purchased airline ticket of OP /Petitioner through its agent OP.2/Respondent No. 2. He is an entrepreneur and frequent traveler to Europe and other foreign destinations in connection with business and holds a 'Shenagan Visa' which is valid for the two years and is applicable for 16 European countries including France. The complainant was visiting a Trade Fair being organized by the CII at Reunion Island, a French Territory, scheduled from 7th to 17th November, 2003, and had paid for the participation, cost of Rs. 71,610/-, as a delegate member and had also applied for Visa for visiting the particular destination. On 5th November, the complainant took his flight from New Delhi and at the counter of OP at the airport the officials of OP verified the ticket, passport and visa and thereafter the complainant was allowed to check in and was issued a boarding pass for flight No. EA 543. He arrived at Dubai and on 6-11-2003 boarded another Emirate Flight No. EK - 701 for Mauritius. As per the itinerary, he was to board Air Mauritius flight NO MK 230 for traveling to Reunion Island and when the complainant went for check in, the immigration counter of the Mauritius airport staff, did not allow the complainant to travel any further and was told that he cannot travel to Reunion Island for want of proper Visa/travel document. The complainant was detained in Mauritius for lack of endorsement on his Visa which had an endorsement "Also valid for French Territories". The complainant tried to explain the officials of the airport staff at Mauritius but to no avail and the efforts to obtain a fresh Visa also could not succeed as the proceedings were to take ten days by which time the fair would have concluded. The complainant had already booked goods worth Rs. 5.00 Lakhs for the fair and had shipped to Reunion Island which could not be withdrawn from the customs at Reunion Island as the complainant was not allowed to travel. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that complainant hired services of OP to travel to Mauritius from New Delhi and advise as to correctness of travel documents by the complainant for his onward travel from Mauritius was not within the scope of services which was provided by OP. It was further submitted that checking visa document was not part of its duty. It was further submitted that as per complainant his visa was valid for travel to France, but was not valid for travel to French Territories without endorsement and in such case there was no deficiency on the part of OP. OP denied other allegations and submitted that complainant has not impleaded Air Mauritius as a party and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

(3.) District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. Both parties filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal of OP, but allowed appeal of complainant and enhanced compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- against which this revision petition has been filed.