AirAsia’s passport stain check: Court orders Rs 1.15 lakh payout for costing woman her job

“The act of retaining the amounts for the services not rendered is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No 3 and 4 (Air Asia). Therefore, the act of opposite parties No 3 and 4 has certainly caused inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant,” the May 29 order read.

‘Job lost’

• The woman pursued her MBA at the University of South Australia, she held a student visa issued on August 16, 2019, which was renewed in accordance with the procedure.
• After completing her MBA, the woman was offered a job by a company in Adelaide, Australia, where she was required to join on August 15, 2022.
• The woman planned a short trip to India to attend a ceremony of her close relative, in India, and accordingly, she travelled to India on July 26, 2022.
• On July 27, 2022, the woman booked a return ticket with Air India Express to travel on August 4, 2022.
• Air India Express issued flight tickets to the woman to travel from Hyderabad to Kuala Lumpur and from Kuala Lumpur to Bali.
• The further travel from Bali to Adelaide was booked through Jet Square. Keeping up with the travel schedule, the woman arrived at the Hyderabad Airport on August 4, 2022.
• At the time of the check-in process, objections were raised by the staff of Air India Express and Air Asia for issuing the boarding pass.
• When enquired by the woman, the manager of the airlines informed the woman that there was a stain on her passport, due to which the boarding pass was not issued.
• The woman was asked to approach the authorities at the immigration check to solve her issue.
• The immigration check personnel expressed their helplessness and informed the complainant that they were not the proper persons to address the issue.
• The woman tried her best to get the issue resolved and explained to the opposite parties that, although the stain had existed on the passport for more than 5 years, the woman had been travelling without any issue.
• The woman also pleaded with the airlines that she would lose her job if she didn’t reach the place on time, but the opposite parties did not listen.
• The airline companies neither cancelled the ticket nor refunded any amount. Desperate and devastated, the woman tried booking a ticket on another flight.
• Finally, on August 15, 2022, the woman had to book another flight with Singapore Airlines, spending Rs. 99,439 to travel on August 18, 2022.
• According to the woman, none of the objections that were raised by the present airlines was even an issue with Singapore Airlines or with any other airlines in the woman’s travel.
• The woman had to ultimately leave her job in Australia as she could not arrive in time to join it.
• The harassment by the employees of the airlines caused mental agony to the woman, and hence, she had alleged a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the airline companies.

‘Bald averments’

The district commission held that the conduct of the airline companies amounted to breach of terms and conditions applicable to the carrier, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The commission observed that apart from “bald averments”, there was nothing on the record to show that the stained passport came within the definition of ‘damage’ mentioned in the terms and conditions of the carriage applicable to the airline companies.

The commission noted that there was no evidence to show that the bar code was not readable due to the stain and that, on scrutiny of the terms and conditions applicable to the airline companies, it was clear that the stain on the passport did not fall within the definition of ‘damage’ to invoke the clause of ‘right to refuse carriage’.

Further, the commission was of the view that the apprehension that a stain on the passport falls within the definition of ‘damage’ and puts the airlines to legal consequences in the event of refusal of entry by immigration authorities at the destination was based on assumptions and was not as per the terms and conditions.

According to the commission, there was no material to show that the airline companies had complied with the terms and conditions applicable regarding the refund after refusing to carry a passenger.

It was also stated that the act of retaining the amounts for the services not rendered is nothing but a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the airline company, and hence, the act had indeed caused inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant.

It was also held by the commission that the woman was allowed to travel without any problem on other airlines using the same passport and therefore she was entitled to a refund of the amount paid by her towards the flight ticket along with just and reasonable compensation and costs.

It was the finding of the commission that there was nothing on record to show that the woman had taken any service from Air India Express, and hence the complaint against the airline company was dismissed.

Air Asia, however, was held liable for the inconvenience and mental agony caused and was directed by the district commission to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs 1 lakh along with costs of Rs 15,000 so the ends of justice could be met.

‘Boarding pass refused’

Advocate DSVG Nagaraju, appearing on behalf of the woman, argued that despite having a confirmed flight ticket issued by the airlines and a valid passport, the airlines have refused to issue a boarding pass because there is a stain on the passport.

It is contended by the counsel that although the stain has existed on the passport for more than 5 years and the woman has been travelling between India and Australia, she has not faced any issue for all the years when she has gone to the University of South Australia to pursue her MBA.

The counsel also urged that the denial on the ground of stain on the passport did not fall within the definition of ‘damage’ as defined in the ‘Terms and Conditions of Carriage for AK Flights’. It was also submitted that the airlines should have sent the woman to the immigration authorities, but they did not do so.

‘Frivolous complaint’

Advocate VVNK Sarath Saran, representing Air India Express, contended that the complaint was frivolous and did not contain merits as far as Air India Express was concerned. It was also submitted that Air India did not provide passenger services on international routes.

The counsel argued that no case was made out against them as code on the flight tickets of the woman was ‘AK’ and the flights operated by Air India had the code of ‘15’. It was further urged that the complaint was not valid regarding them, and hence no relief could be claimed.

‘Stains and soiled’

Advocate V Subba Rao, appearing for Air Asia, contended that the airline had issued a ticket to the woman subject to applicable statutory requirements, aviation regulations and conditions of carriage governing international air travel.

It was further submitted that the passport of the woman was damaged, the visa had stains on the pages, and that soiled and damaged passport squarely fell within the category of invalid travel documentation, justifying the refusal of boarding.

It was argued that the opposite parties had acted in a bona fide and reasonable manner, strictly in compliance with the laws and regulatory requirements.
The counsel stated that the staff of the airline had exercised “due diligence and reasonable discretion” after verifying the condition of the passport and after getting inputs from the concerned immigration authorities.

It was further submitted that a decision taken by another airline at a later point in time could not affect their lawful decision and that each carrier is entitled to exercise its own discretion based on the facts and circumstances at the relevant time.

Lately, it was urged that the alleged loss of employment opportunity, alternate ticket expenses and mental agony claimed by the woman were remote, speculative and unsubstantiated.