Qatar Airways To Pay Rs.10 Lakh For Denying Boarding To Minor Children: Consumer Commission [Read Order]

Ernakulam: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, has directed Qatar Airways to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to a family after the airline denied boarding to their two minor children on a return flight from Kochi to Venice, despite having permitted them to travel on the very same documents on the onward journey.

The Bench of President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N was dealing with a complaint filed by Roshan Jose, an Italy-based expatriate, along with his two minor children, against Qatar Airways, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant, holding a family visa covering himself, his wife Vinaya and his elder child, had booked tickets for the entire family, including his infant child whose visa was under process and for whom the authorities had issued a receipt accepted as a valid travel document.

The complainant's case was that the family travelled without any objection from Venice to Doha to Kochi on 20-21 November 2018, with the airline's officials duly verifying and accepting the e-tickets and travel documents at every stage. However, while checking in for the return journey from Kochi on 3 December 2018, the family was made to wait for about two and a half hours, and just ten minutes before departure, the elder child was denied a boarding pass for want of an independent visa. The child was left in the custody of relatives who had come to see the family off, while the complainant, his wife and the infant proceeded to board the flight to Doha.

At Doha, the complainant, his wife and the infant were again subjected to verification for the connecting flight to Venice, and after nearly ten hours of waiting, the infant was informed that he would not be permitted to board the flight, even though a boarding pass for the Doha-Venice leg had already been issued to him at Kochi after verification of the same documents. Since the complainant's wife had to report for duty, it was decided that she alone would fly onward while the complainant returned to Kochi with the infant. The complainant later travelled back to Venice at his own expense, leaving the infant in the native place with relatives, arranged for the elder child to be flown to Venice through an escorted air-hostess service, and made a further trip to bring the infant back, incurring additional costs throughout.

Qatar Airways, in its version, contended that it was the passenger's responsibility to carry appropriate travel documents, including a valid visa, and that the airline could not permit any person to travel without one. It stated that the elder child was declined boarding “as per instructions from Venice Airport” for want of an independent visa, and that the infant was not allowed to travel on the Doha-Venice leg as he “did not hold valid visa for himself to travel to Italy as per the requirement of Immigration Authorities of Italy.” The airline also relied on Article 9 of the General Conditions of Carriage, permitting an airline to deny boarding where a passenger attempts to enter a country without valid travel documents, and submitted that its Doha team had coordinated with the Venice immigration authorities to seek an exceptional “OK TO BOARD,” which was declined.

Examining the rival contentions and the oral and documentary evidence, including the depositions of the complainant and the airline's representative, the Commission held that it was “an admitted fact that the opposite party had permitted the complainant, his wife and the infant children to travel from Venice to Doha and thereafter to Kochi on its aircraft without raising any objection whatsoever regarding the travel documents of the infant.” It found the airline's conduct in preventing the children from accompanying their parents on the return journey to be “wholly arbitrary” and observed that it “has shocked the conscience of this Commission.”

The Commission further held that “if the travel documents of the infant were not sufficient for international travel, the opposite party ought not to have permitted the children to undertake the onward journey from Venice in the first instance,” and that having issued to-and-fro tickets and boarding passes on the strength of the same documents, “the opposite party ought to have allowed the scheduled return journey as well.” It concluded that the refusal to permit the return journey on the very same set of documents was “patently inconsistent, unjustified and highly reprehensible,” and that the resulting mental agony and hardship suffered by the parents were “the direct and inevitable consequence of the wrongful conduct of the opposite party,” amounting to “a clear deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice.”

Allowing the complaint, the Commission directed Qatar Airways to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainants, along with Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings, within forty-five days of receipt of the order, failing which the compensation amount would carry interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation.

Appearances: Adv. S. Asokan of S. Asokan & Associates, Thodupuzha, appeared for the complainants, while Adv. Philip T. Varghese appeared for Qatar Airways.

Case Title: Roshan Jose & Ors. v. Qatar Airways

[Read Order]