JUDGMENTS NOTE- Denied Boarding on visa requirment
Sr. CASE FACTS RELEVANT PARAS
No.
1. Mrs. Pushpa The case involved Gandhinagar's In a nutshell, the complainant having valid ticket and student
Mahesh Yadav Maharshi Yadav, who had to go to visa for the further study in Torrento inspite of this, the
Canada for further studies. He had a complainant was not permitted to board the flight at Bombay. In
Versus
student visa and booked a ticket from this context, it was the duty of the opponent airline company
M/s. Deutsche Mumbai to Toronto for the flight on while booking travelling ticket that such transit visa was
Lufthansa AG April 13, 2022. The flight had two compulsory for the complainant. It is also well settled law that if
CC/89/2023 stoppages – at Munich and Frankfurt – an agent issuing the ticket of the airline does not inform about
before Toronto. During the check-in the requirement of transit CC 89/2023 Page 9 visa then agent is
process at the Mumbai airport, the also liable. Likewise it was the duty of the respondent to inform
airline insisted on a transit Schengen or intimate the complainant for requirement of such transit visa
visa because the stoppages were in a but it was not reminded to the complainant by the respondent
European country. The student did not which clearly shows deficiency in service. This fact itself depicts
have such a visa and hence was that a glaring deficiency in service has been meted out to the
prevented from boarding. innocent complainant by the opponent. The story in distraught
manner does not end here. The fact that thought the complainant
was having valid ticket for his destined journey, he was
prevented at Mumbai airport by opponent. Even at the time of
hearing, nothing has been stated that the transit Schengen Visa
was compulsory and the ticket was issued on the basis of
Canadian Student Visa for which the complainant has paid
Rs.67,612/- (Rs.Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Twelve
only) on 23/02/2022 and the complainant was not going to travel
anywhere either in Munich or Frankfurt. Therefore, in our
considered opinion, the complainant was falsely and painfully
stopped at the airport by such opponent authority. Hence, in our
considered conclusion the complainant’s right to travel abroad
has been violated by the opponent without resorting to just,
reasonable and fair procedure established by law, which was
decided in the landmark judgement in Menka Gandhi vs Union
of India AIR 1978 SC 597 whereby it is held that the procedure
established by law means procedure must be just, fair and
reasonable. Further, in well-known case of Satwant Singh
Sawhney vs D.Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New
Delhi & Ors AIR 1967 SC 1836 it is held that right to travel
abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution.
