IATA Agents Association of India (IAAI) has filed a case against IATA IATA at Gurgaon, Haryana, seeking directive for the reconstitution of APJC-India under Appendix ‘F’ – of PAConf New Guidelines of January 2014. This has led to a case under CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) against the IATA Representative, Vinod Malhotra.
IAAI’s press statement
According to a release issued by IAAI, till end-2013, in countries governed under 810 and 818g, Agents’ Representation in APJC was decided between the Travel Associations. In India, however, IAAI was kept out of APJC by the vested interests.
In January 2014, PAConf issued globalized directives to countries under Res 818g to regularize APJC under Appendix-“F” of the New Guidelines – Establishment of an APJC – directing that the IATA local/regional offices must be responsible for the formation and regularizations of the APJCs in a country.
When our legitimate right was denied again, there was no other way to push our proposed DIP (Default Insurance Program) through APJC-India, and IAAI was constrained to approach the Court of Law for justice and fairness.
IAAI has requested the Court to restrain APJC-India from taking any action and direct the IATA Country Director to re-constitute APJC-India with 18 members (9 airlines and 9 agents equally represented by TAAI, TAFI & IAAI) with the Chairman to be elected from amongst these 18 Members as stipulated by
Appendix “F”
Since IATA is a neutral body coordinating with both the airlines and the agents, we expected either a statement on compliance to Appendix-F or a regret of inability under jurisdictional conflict.
On the contrary, IATA-India represented by Vinod Malhotra, purportedly, as a resident representative of IATA, stated that IATA only has a Branch office in Mumbai and that “IATA India Private Limited” in Delhi is a separate entity registered in India and challenged the jurisdiction of the Court.
Further, he acted in a partisan manner and justified the deeds and activities of APJC-India, rationalized representation of TAAI & TAFI, eulogized the joint bank guarantee system, upheld and justified the “14 memberships” as a true representation of the industry.
In order to establish the restricted eligibility of TAAI and TAFI, the Defendant fraudulently produced as evidence before the Court, a copy of a letter dated 27th October, 2014, addressed to IAAI by IATA. This letter is purportedly signed by Mr. Sunil Chopra as Asst. Director – IDFS for India & Nepal. It is surprising how Mr. Sunil Chopra could sign such a letter when, in fact, he had been transferred to Singapore in August, 2013, as Regional Manager to certain Asian countries other than India!
On scrutiny, it came to light that this letter was a replication of the letter dated 19th July 2010 sent by IATA to IAAI when Mr. Sunil Chopra was the IATA Asst. Director – IDFS for India & Nepal then in 2010.
IAAI, therefore, has filed a Criminal case for forgery against the Defendant under Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code, read with Sections 191,192,193 & 194 of IPC, and the Case is posted for Hearing on 15.07.2015 due to Court vacation.
IAAI had only requested for induction into APJC-India as privileged under Appendix “F” of the PAConf Directives. IATA-India is supposed to be an impartial and unbiased Body, and being the Secretary to APJC, why are they so anxious & adamant to keep IAAI out of APJC-India? What is their commercial interest in APJC’s Agency Representation – nexus or noxious?
Appendix “F” globally recommends membership up to 18 and stipulates that all National Associations must have equal representation and the Chairman is to be elected from amongst them. And it even specifies that, if any fraction of a substantial number of agents is not represented through any Associations, IATA must ensure even their representation through nomination.
Even in a small country like Malaysia, with less than 800 Agents, the APJC has 18 Members. Gulf Counties have 18 members with a nominated Agent from Doha since the Government of Qatar forbids any Trade Associations in Qatar. Initially when APJC-India was formed in the year 2000, there were only 42 airlines and less than 2000 Agents. Initially, only TAAI was represented in APJC; thereafter, TAFI got inducted. In a democratic country with 2950 IATA Agents and 96 IATA carriers, can a 14-Member APJC be truly representative of the Indian Aviation Industry as stipulated in Para 1.1.1.3 of IATA Resolution 818G? IAAI and some major carriers like Emirates and Etihad are deliberately being kept out by restricting the APJC membership to only 14 Members.
IAAI is in negotiation with certain DIP (Default Insurance Program) Providers but have hardly got any support from IATA Singapore as the same has not been recommended through APJC-India. Hence, only a reconstituted APJC-India as per PAConf 2014 Appendix ‘F can save the Travel Industry in India. And, our proposal for DIP is endorsed and fully supported by Jet Airways, Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Etihad & Silk Air.
(DIP will safeguard Agents from any cash or fixed deposits or advance insurance premiums, since they have to pay only a marginal fee for the tickets that are being sold within the BSP payment cycle. Luckily, our Agent Representatives in APJC-India find Joint Bank Guarantee more beneficial than Insurance scheme or DIP system.)
IAAI has challenged and fought against the unjust policies of APJC-India on many occasions, especially when IATA Resolutions were misinterpreted and misguided by the vested interests like the implementation of minimum Bank Guarantee in 2002, Zero commission & Transaction Fee in 2008 mooted by the Associations, the implementation & process of TAP on 08.03.2010 to circumvent our DGCA Order of 05.03.2010, the non-formation of ADM polices, brokerage on insurance premiums, and the process of implementing weekly payment system in India which can even be reverted back to fortnightly payment even today by a re-constituted APJC-India.
The Industry is well aware of the game played by TAAI & TAFI by deliberately absenting themselves from the APJC-India Meeting held on 14.09.2010. This allowed the Airline Members to convene as an “Airlines Working Group” Meeting and recommend the retention of the 14-Member APJC-India with Air India as Chairman under 818g effective 01.06.2011. IATA, as APJC Secretary, mischievously recorded these proceedings as the Minutes of APJC Meet No-29, signed by Air India as Chairman and submitted to PAConf for circulation as Agenda Item-G5 on 17.09.2010
Friends, today, with IAAI representing almost one third of the Travel Agents in India, is it therefore a crime to demand our legal and rightful representation in APJC-India? What is the interest of IATA-India in supporting only TAAI & TAFI and resisting IAAI’s presence in such an august Body like the APJC? What is their commercial interest in keeping IAAI out?
IAAI has taken up this matter of the reconstitution of APJC-India with Tony Tyler – Director-General & CEO, IATA; Aleks Popovich – Sr. Vice-President IDFS, IATA, and Chris Gilbey – Chairman of the Passenger Agency Conference.
Every agent should have the liberty, the equality and the flexibility to do business according to his financial capacity and should also be compensated and remunerated by the airlines for the services rendered on their behalf.
