The consumer forum in Ahmedabad has asked Lufthansa Airline to pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation and refund Rs 67,000 for a cancelled ticket after the student was barred from boarding a Toronto-bound flight on visa grounds.
The student was prevented from flying because the flight had stoppages in Munich and Frankfurt in Germany, and the student did not possess a transit Schengen visa for the same.
The consumer commission has considered it a deficiency in service.
The case involves Gandhinagar’s Maharshi Yadav, who had to go to Canada for further studies. He had a student visa and booked a ticket from Mumbai to Toronto for the flight on April 13, 2022. During check-in at Mumbai airport, the airline insisted on a transit Schengen visa because the stoppages were in a European country. The student did not have such a visa and hence was prevented from boarding.
Since the student was in a hurry, he cancelled the ticket and booked another flight with Emirates, paying Rs 1.70 lakh, and left the country the next day. A month later, the student initiated a legal process for ticket refund and compensation from the airline through his mother. He sued the airline with the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Gandhinagar district, through advocate Sunil Chhabaria, claiming that while issuing him the ticket, the airline had not informed him that a transit Schengen visa would be required.
The airline responded to the commission’s notice and stuck to its stand that the student could not have travelled on that flight without a Schengen visa. Moreover, he chose to cancel the ticket, which was non-refundable.
Upon hearing the case, the commission said, “We are utterly shocked to know that the complainant had a student visa for Toronto. How was he expected to have a transit Schengen visa for Munich and Frankfurt? He was not going to tour in a foreign country.”
The commission further said, “It was the duty of the respondent (airline) to inform or intimate the complainant of the requirement of such a transit visa, but it was not reminded to the complainant by the respondent, which clearly shows a deficiency in service. 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 a just, reasonable, and fair procedure established by law.”
Also Read: Puja Khedkar Loses IAS Berth With Govt’s ‘Immediate’ Sacking Order
