The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum

CONSUMER RIGHTS
Grounded by airlines
Pushpa Girimaji

Inadequate travel information by airlines or agents can leave passengers high and dry

WHETHER domestic or international, an airlines cannot escape liability for negligent service. This message comes across yet again in an order of the apex consumer court.

This case involved three passengers set to travel from New Delhi to Vancouver by Thai Airways International. The passengers had visas for Canada, their tickets were confirmed and everything was in order, or so they thought, till they were forced to return midway for not possessing a transit visa for the USA.

On its flight from New Delhi to Vancouver, Thai Airways had two stopovers—one in Bangkok and the other in Seattle. Usually, there is no visa requirement for transit passengers, unless they intend to enter the country. However, the US rules require passengers to procure a transit visa. But these passengers were not told about this by their travel agent.

Even at the Delhi international airport, where the airline staff examined their passport and visa and issued them their boarding pass, this crucial information was not given. So, they travelled to Bangkok, where they were told by the airline staff that they did not possess a transit visa for the USA and were sent back to Delhi. Considering that one of the passengers was aged 79, the behaviour of the airline staff was disgusting, to say the least. On their return to Delhi, the passengers took an Alitalia flight via Dubai to reach Vancouver.

Subsequently, they asked Thai Airways to refund the cost of their travel from Delhi to Bangkok and back. The airline refused on the ground that it was the responsibility of the passengers to carry all entry documents.

When this view was accepted by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the passengers filed an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which held the airline as well as the travel agent guilty of negligent service.

Referring to Article 14 of the Thai Passenger Manual, which said that the carrier reserved the right to refuse passage to those whose documents did not appear in order, the apex consumer court pointed out that if there was any discrepancy in the travel documents, it should have been pointed out by the airline staff at the beginning of the journey in Delhi. The Article puts the onus on the airline staff to point out any discrepancy in the documents and refuse passage.

The travel agent who issued the ticket was also to blame for not ensuring that the documentation was complete, the Commission said. It, therefore, directed that they refund the cost of the ticket along with 9 per cent interest and also pay Rs10,000 as costs to the passengers. (Harjinder Singh Bajwa vs Thai Airways International and another, FA NO 602 of 1995)

In this context, I remember the case of Air India vs Kamdar, wherein the travel agent issued Kamdar and his friends confirmed tickets for six days to Moscow and back. Under the rules, however, they were required to stay in Moscow for a minimum of 10 days to utilise the return ticket. And this, they came to know only when they presented themselves at Moscow airport for their return journey and were refused passage.

However, in this case the apex consumer court held that there was no negligence on the part of the airline, which, as the principal party, could not be held liable for the wrongful act of its agent.

Fortunately for consumers, in a subsequent order, the apex consumer court deviated from this view and held that airlines were liable for the deficient service provided by their agents. In this respect, the present judgment is an improvement on the earlier order.