Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1188 (ORI)

British Airways v. Rabindra Nath Pati

2008-12-26

R.K.PATRA, SUBASH MAHTAB

body2008
ORDER R. K. PATRA, J., PRESIDENT. — The Khurda District Forum by order dated 07.02.2006 made in C.D. Case No.348 of 2004 has directed the British Airways to refund rupees 31,496/- (towards the cost of the return ticket) to the complainant and pay him rupees 50,000/- (towards compensation for mental agony), rupees 50,000/- (towards other expenses) and rupees 2,000/- as costs. Being aggrieved by the said order, the British Airways has filed First Appeal No.287 of 2006. The complainant has filed First Appeal No.568 of 2006 contending that the compensation, cost etc. granted in his favour are not adequate. Both the appeals being analogous, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he was invited by Penn State University, Pennsylvania, United States of America to attend the Indigenous Knowledge Conference-2004 which was to take place from May 27-29, 2004. He being a valid passport holder applied for visa to the U.S. Consulate at Kolkata indicating that he was to stay in the U.S. for two weeks. He purchased ticket through the local travel agency for his ‘to & fro’ journey to the U.S. on payment of rupees 62,992/-. He pro¬ceeded from New Delhi to the U.S. on 24.05.2004. His visa was valid upto six months as a ‘short term scholar’. After completion of the programme, he came to Philadelphia airport on 22.06.2004 to board to the British Airways flight to come back to India. But the authorities of British Airways did not permit him to board the aircraft on the ground that the visa expired on 29.05.2004 and asked him to obtain transit visa for flying over United Kingdom. When he was refused to travel on that day, he became helpless on a foreign soil. He requested for refund of the bal¬ance cost of the ticket so as to enable him to purchase another ticket in some other airlines where transit visa was not re¬quired. But the British Airways told him that the amount would be refunded at the place of booking in India. In these difficult and miserable circumstances, he had to adjust in a friend’s house spending money from his own resources and had to purchase ticket through the friend’s credit card and finally reached India on 17.07.2004. But the British Airways told him that the amount would be refunded at the place of booking in India. In these difficult and miserable circumstances, he had to adjust in a friend’s house spending money from his own resources and had to purchase ticket through the friend’s credit card and finally reached India on 17.07.2004. According to the complainant, the British Airways is guilty of deficiency in service by refusing him to board the aircraft on 22.06.2004 in Philadelphia airport when he had visa to stay in the U.S. for six months. 3. The British Airways in its written version pleaded that the complainant’s travelling visa expired on 29.05.2004 and, therefore, he could not have been allowed to travel in the air¬craft on 22.06.2004 to fly through the United Kingdom en route to India. 4. The District Forum held; (i) the complainant’s visa was valid upto six months from 27.05.2004 and it did not expire when he wanted to return from the U.S. on 22.06.2004; (ii) refusal of the British Airways to return to India on the basis of ticket purchased by him amounts to deficiency in service. 5. From the pleadings and documents available on record, the following disputed facts emerge; The complainant was invited for Penn State University, Pennsylvania to attend the Indigenous Knowledge Conference-2004. The conference was to take place from 27th to 29th May, 2004. On his application, he was granted visa on 27.04.2004 by the U.S. Consulate at Kolkata. On 19.05.2004, he purchased air ticket from the local travel agency for journey from Delhi to Philadelphia ‘to & fro’ in the British Airways on payment of rupees 62,992/-. He reached Philadelphia airport, U.S. on 27.05.2004. He was refused to board the British Airways flight on 22.06.2004 at the Philadelphia airport on the ground that his visa expired on 29.05.2004 and he was to obtain the transit visa for flying through the United Kingdom. On 17.07.2004, he returned to India by Alitalia Airways. 6. The contention of Shri Jena, learned counsel for the complainant is that he was invited to attend the conference as ‘short term scholar’ which was for a period of six months and thus it was covered by the visa and, therefore, the British Airways could not have prohibited him from boarding the aircraft at Philadelphia airport on 22.06.2004 to come back to India. Shri Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the British Airways contended that the complainant’s visa was from 27.05.2004 to 29.05.2004 and "end date" being 29.05.2004, he could have travelled after that day as the visa expired on the “end date” itself without obtaining the transit visa. 7. In order to resolve the rival contentions, it is neces¬sary for us to peruse the relevant documents. The Pennsylvania State University in its letter dated 11.03.2004 while enclosing the DS-2019 form informed the complainant that he was to obtain a J-1 visa from the nearest U.S. Consulate. It was indicated in the said letter that if approved, he would be permitted to enter the U.S. for the period from 27.05.2004 to 29.05.2004. The complain¬ant was clearly told that he would be allowed to stay in the U.S. for the time period indicated on Line #3 of the DS2019. It is relevant to extract that portion of the letter; IMPORTANT: You are only allowed to stay in the United States for the time period indicated on Line #3 of the DS2019.” The complainant in his application for non-immigrant visa answered all the columns. We are concerned with column Nos.22, 24, 26 and 27. His replies were as follows; “22. When do you intend to arrive in the U.S. ? (Provide specific date if known) 25th May, 2004 23. xxxx xxxx xxxx 24. At what address will you stay in the U.S. ? Satya and Prachi Mohanty, II-610-239-8461, #2 Crimson Drive, East Norriton, PA-19401, Email : Prachimohanty @ hotmail.com. 25. xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. How long do you intend to stay in the U.S. ? Two weeks. 27. What is the purpose of your trip ? To attend international conference on Indigenous knowledge as a speaker and interact with various research institutions.” On consideration of the said application, CERTIFICATE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR EXCHANGE VISITOR (J-1) STATUS, otherwise known as ‘visa’ was issued to him. In column No.3, it was indicated as follows; “3. Form Covers Period : From (mm-dd-yyyy) : 05-27-2004 To (mm-dd-yyyy) : 05-29-2004" His status was “short-term scholar”. In column No.3, it was indicated as follows; “3. Form Covers Period : From (mm-dd-yyyy) : 05-27-2004 To (mm-dd-yyyy) : 05-29-2004" His status was “short-term scholar”. In the said visa, visitors were noticed as follows :- “To facilitate your readmission to the United States after a visit in another country other than a contiguous territory or adjacent islands, you should have the Responsible Officer of your sponsoring organization indicate on the TRAVEL VALIDATION BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICER or Alternate Responsible Officer secure of the Form DS-2019 that you continue to be in good standing. The signature of the Responsible Officer or the Alternate Respon¬sible Officer on the Form DS-2019 is valid for upto one year* or until the end date in item 3 on page 1 of this Form or to the validation date authorized by the Responsible Officer, whichever occurs sooner. *EXCEPT:- Maximum validation period is upto six months for Short-term Scholars and four months for Camp Counsellors and Summer Travel/Work.” On careful reading of the aforesaid documents, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant’s visa for the U.S. was for a limited period commencing from 27.05.2004 to 29.05.2004. The ‘end date’ in item No.3 on page-1 of the said form was ’29.05.2004'. This is evident from the sentence that “the signa¬ture of the Responsible Officer or the Alternate Responsible Officer on the Form DS-2019 is valid for upto one year* or until the end date in item 3 of page 1 whichever occurs sooner”. The complainant in his visa application intended to stay in the U.S. for two weeks, but he was granted visa for the limited period from 27.5.2004 to 29.5.2004. When he wanted to avail his journey in the British Airways flight on 22.6.2004, his visa had already come to an end on 29.5.2004. As the British Airways flight was to fly over British Kingdom, he was asked to have a transit visa which he did not possess. Therefore, no wrong was committed by the British Airways in refusing him to travel on 22.06.2004 from Philadelphia airport to India in its airlines. 8. It is contended on behalf of the complainant that if transit visa is necessary, how could the complainant travel on 16.07.2004 by Alitalia Airways. We do not know whether the Alita¬lia Airways flew over the United Kingdom. 8. It is contended on behalf of the complainant that if transit visa is necessary, how could the complainant travel on 16.07.2004 by Alitalia Airways. We do not know whether the Alita¬lia Airways flew over the United Kingdom. We are also not told as to what type of travelling arrangements exist between the U.S. and Italy. Therefore, the complainant’s travel by Alitalia Air¬ways is irrelevant to decide the question involved in these ap¬peals. The order of the British Consulate-General, New York refusing the complainant’s application for a visa to pass through the United Kingdom en-route to India has bearing on the issue. The order contained in the letter dated 14.07.2004 indicates that persons seeking to pass through the United Kingdom en-route to another country or territory without entering the United Kingdom require a visa for that purpose. As per the ticket, the complain¬ants itinerary was Delhi-London-Philadelphia London-Delhi. His return journey was to fly over London to reach Delhi. As his ‘end date’ was 29.5.2004, his proposed journey on 22.6.2004 required a transit visa. 9. The complainant’s stay till 22.06.2004 was bonafide. The ticket purchased by him shows that he was to leave India on 24.5.2004 and leave Philadelphia airport on 22.06.2004 for Delhi. That was the reason why he proposed his return journey to Delhi on 22.06.2004. Column No.26 of his application shows that he intended to stay in the United States for two weeks. He might have also been misled with the idea that he could stay in the U.S. for six months as a “short-term scholar”. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in the ends of justice, we direct the British Airways to refund the balance price of the return ticket amounting to rupees 31,496/-. Had this amount been refund¬ed at Philadelphia airport on 22.06.2004 to him, he could have tried his luck through some other airlines to come to Delhi or as gesture to a beleaguered passenger it could have arranged his journey through some other airlines which is normally done by many airlines. For this lapse, the British Airways has to bear the price of the ticket in the Alitalia Airways amounting to $900 U.S. (rupees 41,400/-). For this lapse, the British Airways has to bear the price of the ticket in the Alitalia Airways amounting to $900 U.S. (rupees 41,400/-). In conclusion, in modification of the impugned order, we direct the British Airways to pay to the com¬plainant a total amount of rupees 72,896/- by 28.02.2008, failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from 22.06.2004. 10. Both the appeals are disposed of with the above obser¬vation and direction. Appeal disposed of.