Kim James 
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), while going with the applicable commands of the Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, ruled in SpiceJet Ltd. V. Dinesh Kumar & Anr that Aadhaar card isn’t a legitimate document for the tour to Nepal/Bhutan.
Background
The commission becomes hearing a revision petition in opposition to the order of the State Commission of Punjab. The competition factor turned into that the complainant, specifically Dinesh Kumar, had booked a price tag Delhi- – Kathmandu – Delhi thru the net travel co., departing from Delhi on 05.07.2013. He had produced his e-price ticket and Aadhaar card on the airways organization’s test-in counter. The airline’s company no longer received a Aadhaar card as a legitimate/perfect travel record for travel to Nepal (Kathmandu) and refused a boarding bypass.
The gift revision petition becomes filed with the aid of the airline’s corporation below segment 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the National Commission in opposition to the said Order dated 22.01.2016 of the State Commission. The District Forum vide its Order dated 30.09.2014 allowed the complaint, holding the airline’s enterprise liable, and dismissed the criticism against the web journey agency. The State Commission vide its Order dated 22.01.2016 dismissed the appeal of the airways organization.
The relevant facts imprinted on the e-price tag, issued via the web travel company, made it obligatory to hold Government identified photo identification (ID) and E-Ticket. This study can include a Driving License, Passport, PAN Card, Voter ID Card, or another ID issued via the Government of India. For little one passengers, it’s miles mandatory to hold the Date of Birth certificates.
Aadhar now not a legitimate file for the tour to Nepal
While passing the order, the commission noted that the statistics at the e-price ticket no longer specially mention Aadhaar card to be a valid/suitable tour file for the journey to Nepal. The instructions of the Bureau of Immigration, in particular, proscribe Aadhaar (UID) card as a legitimate/proper tour report for the journey to Nepal / Bhutan. Rejecting the argument made on behalf of the complainant that “Aadhaar card” falls within “some other ID issued through Government of India” mentioned on the e-price ticket as “erroneous,” Commission stated that Aadhaar quantity is a 12-digit random number issued by way of the Unique Identification Authority of India to the citizens of India after pleasing the verification system laid down through the stated Authority, and might in no way be construed to be “every other ID issued through the Government of India” within the particular context of it being a legitimate/ideal travel report for travel to Nepal. It also said that there is no law made underneath the Act of 2016 declaring the Aadhaar card (wide variety) as a legitimate/appropriate tour file for the tour to Nepal, nor do airline organizations have to get admission to the Aadhaar database.
“… there is no linkage between airlines cos. And the Aadhaar database for any reason, which includes the purpose of treating the Aadhaar card as a legitimate/desirable journey record for the journey to Nepal. Eight. And, in all contingencies, the commands of the Bureau of Immigration, which particularly avoid aadhaar card as a valid/perfect travel document, supersedes any statistics and so on. Written by using an online tour co. And so forth. On its e-tickets.” Commission, but cleared that it has no intention to critique Aadhar card and that a treatise on ‘Aadhaar card’ would be ill-conceived and misplaced at the part of a quasi-judicial tribunal in the gift information and context of the case before it.
Findings
The commission observed that the District Forum has erred in allowing the criticism in opposition to the airline’s corporation, and the State Commission has erred in dismissing the attraction of the airline’s employer and set apart the orders of each District Forum and the State Commission. It additionally discovered the complaint filed by using the complainant Dinesh Kumar to be frivolous and vexatious inside the meaning of segment 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 dealing with the dismissal of frivolous or vexatious lawsuits. Commission disregarded the grievance with stern advice of caution to the complainant thru imposition of the value of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited through the complainant with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum within 4 weeks of the pronouncement of this Order, the objective being to emphasize that purchaser safety fora aren’t supposed to be equipment for developing nuisance via filing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits.
