Haryana

Panchkula

CC/112/2018

RANJEEV DAHUJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIR GANESHA - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP JASUJA

21 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	112 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	08.06.2018
Date of Decision	:	21.12.2022

 

Ranjeev Dahuja, s/o Shri Chaman Lal Dahuja, Resident of House No.76, Sector-7, Panchkula.

    ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     Air Ganesha, Plot No.66, Industrial Area Phase-2, Panchkula through its Proprietor Mr. Sumit Aggarwal.

2.     Sumit Aggarwal C/o M/s Air Ganesha, Plot No.66, Industrial Area Phase-2, Panchkula.

3.     Ms.Shinky Grover, Manager M/s Air Ganesha, Plot No.66, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Panchkula.  

                                                                         ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:    Shri Sandeep Jasuja,Advocate for the complainant.

                         Shri Vikas Kuthalia, counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3.

ORDER

(Per Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant’ family, comprising of the complainant, his wife and two daughters and the family of his friend, namely, Mr. Rohit Gandotra, comprising of said Rohit Gandotra, his wife and his daughter, Ms. Aanaya  had planned to visit Dubai(UAE) during the winter vacation of their children commencing from 21.12.2017 and accordingly,  in order to arrange  the tour package, the complainant deputed CFO of his company, namely, Mr.Rajinder Aggarwal, to seek quotations for tour package for Dubai on behalf of both the families for trip starting from 22.12.2017 for 6 days from some travel agency. Mr. Rajinder Aggarwal contacted OP No.1 through OP No.2 and asked a suitable tour package for Dubai. Separate quotations were sought as the complainant and his family wanted VISA on arrival as his family had USA VISA and thus they were not required to have advance VISA for Dubai, whereas family of complainant’s friend Mr. Rohit Gandotra required VISA before departure. On receipt of said quotations, the deal was finalized and thereafter, the complainant got transferred the amount of invoice dated 05.12.2017 on 06.12.2017 and 16.12.2017 through his bank i.e. HDFC Bank Ltd. making payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.3,47,606/- respectively. Mr. Rohit Gandotra also paid an amount of Rs.3,18,862/- i.e. Rs.2,88,000/- on 08.12.2017 and Rs.30,862/- on 11.12.2017 qua invoice dated 05.12.2017. He also supplied all the required documents including the copies of passport of all family members. Ops did not apply the VISA of Aayana daughter of Mr.Rohit Gandotra in time; hence it was not received after processing. Although the VISA of MR. and Mrs.Rohit Gandotra was received well in time along with tickets, vouchers and itinerary. The OP No.1 through OP no.2 assured that VISA of Ms.Aayana would be received before departure and instructed Mr.Rohit Gandotra to proceed to take the flight to Dubai as per schedule. On the said assurance, Mr.Rohit Gandotra and his family proceeded from Jammu on 21.12.2017 for taking their flight, which was scheduled to take off on 22.12.2017 at 4:10 A.M. and checked-in into the hotel in the afternoon. The complainant and his family boarded Shatabdi from Chandigarh in the evening. Complainant was in constant touch with Ops No.1 and 2 in respect of the non receipt of VISA of Ms.Aayana. Finally, OP No.2 showed his inability in providing the VISA of Ms.Aayana saying that it has not been received as there was some delay in applying the same. The OP No.2 further asked the complainant to postpone their trip. It was then specifically conveyed to OP No.2 that it was not possible to postpone the family trip. The complainant requested the Ops that his family alone be allowed to carry on the trip and the other family of Mr.Rohit Gandotra could be given other flexible dates to carry on his trip. The OP No.3 mischievously sent an E-mail to Mr.Rajinder Aggarwal at 20:39:44 PM on 21.12.2017 informing him about the cancellation of entire tour on alleged verbal request of the complainant and Mr. Rohit Gandotra, whereas Ops at the time were in continuous touch with the complainant and Mr.Rohit Gandotra at that time, working out plan as how to undertake the trip with some changes and at no point of time, they asked Ops to cancel their trip. In the mail, Ops felt sorry for not processing the VISA as the same was not in their hand and informed him that hotels booked are non-refundable. So much so, the OPs did not convey a word about cancellation of trip to the complainant and he kept on talking with Ops regarding carrying on the trip of his family. Late in the evening, the OP No.2 refused to entertain the said request of the complainant. Even if, the programme of family of Mr. Rohit Gandotra was in jeopardy on account of non receipt of VISA of Aayana, the trip of family of complainant was not to be cancelled as the complainant had sought separate quotations and had paid separately and because they had all the complete documents to travel to Dubai. The complainant had also requested to arrange a separate tour, but Ops flatly refused to do so. Complainant hurriedly arranged for different destination i.e. “Hua Hin” in Thailand from a different tour operator for which both the families paid three times more than the actual cost. After returning from the trip, the complainant through his officials requested the Ops many a times to refund the cost of the entire trip of both the families as the Ops had taken the responsibilities to get the VISA of family of Mr. Rohit Gandotra and had even charged him separately for getting the VISA. Despite several requests through E-mail for refund of the cost, Ops did not reply the same. A legal notice 13.02.2018 was also sent to Ops seeking refund of Rs.4,47,606/- as paid by the complainant for Dubai Tour. The Ops without any advance intimation transferred an amount of Rs.1,54,688(wrongly written as Rs.1,94,688/-) and Rs.1,16,016/- in the accounts of the complainant and Rohit Gandotra on 01.03.2018. The Ops replied the legal notice on 19.03.2018 through their counsel and denied any kind of deficiency on their part. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notices, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; not coming to this Commission with clean hands; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts etc. On merits, it is stated that applications for the VISA of Mr. Rohit Gandotra, his wife Ms. Shweta Gandotra and daughter Ms. Aayana to visit United Arab Emirates were processed together by Ops and admittedly, the VISA was granted to Mr.Rohit Gandotra and his wife Mrs. Shweta Gandotra to visit United Arab Emirates. Further stated that trip was cancelled on the specific instructions/request of the complainant. In fact, the entire trip was cancelled at the last moment on the very specific and direct verbal/written instructions of complainant as is evident from the chat messages exchanged between the complainant and the Ops. Complainant had cancelled the trip at the very last moment willingly and on his own account and volition as he did not require prior/advance UAE VISA, being a VISA holder of US. Further stated that alternate trip was offered to the complainant by the Ops but the same was refused by the complainant. The bookings as made for the complainant and his friend were non-refundable being peak season of Christmas and New Year days, even though due to the goodwill and persistent efforts of Ops, the partial refunds were received and forwarded to the complainant and his friend in their respective accounts. Denying rest of allegations made by the complainant, Ops stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complainant has not suffered any harassment or agony and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             Replication to the written statements of the OPs No.1 to 3 was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OPs.                                                                                                      

4.             The counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-A along with document Annexure C-1 to C-11 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A along with documents Annexure R-1 & R-2 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and gone through the entire record including the written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant as well as OPs, minutely and carefully.

6.             Admittedly, the air journey of the complainant’s family and Shri Rohit Gandotra’s family on 22.12.2017 to Dubai could not materialize/mature. The payment of sum of Rs.4,47,606/- by complainant to Ops in lieu of air-fare  and vacation package is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that a sum of Rs.1,54,688/- out of  Rs.4,47,606/- has already been refunded by OPs to the complainant.

                During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint as also in the affidavit Annexure C-A, replication and Annexures  C-1 to C-11 has contended that the air journey to Dubai failed to materialize only on account of non grant of visa to Ms.Aayana d/o Sh. Rohit Gandotra by UAE  Embassy. It is contended that the reasons for the non grant of Visa to Ms. Aayana are clearly attributable to OPs, her visa application was submitted by Ops in UAE Embassy with incorrect/wrong particulars, which had led to her visa rejection and further there was delay also in submitting the VISA application of Rohit Gandotra’s family. Controverting the contentions of the OPs that the air journey/package was cancelled at the asking of the complainant, the learned counsel emphasized that trip was cancelled by OPs in view of non grant of VISA to Ms.Aayana. It is contended that the cancellation of air journey/vacation package was neither fair nor justified as no advance visa was required by the complainant’s family being US visa holder.

Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel has prayed for acceptance of the present complaint by directing the Ops to refund the sum of Rs.2,92,918/- along with interest as well as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and litigation charges suffered by the complainant.

7.             The Ops have resisted the complaint on several grounds. The main emphasis of the Ops, while declining the prayer of the complainant, is that the air journey to Dubai on 22.12.2017 was got cancelled at the instance of complainant. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the whatsapp conversation(Annexure R/2) between the complainant and OP No.2.

8.             Regarding rejection of VISA of Ms. Aayana, daughter of Shri Rohit Gandotra, who had to accompany the complainant’s family during the air trip to Dubai on 22.12.2017, it is contended that the applications for VISA of Mr. Rohit Gandotra, his wife Mrs.Shweta Gandotra and his daughter Ms. Aayana to visit UAE were processed and forwarded together by OPs well in time without any delay and admittedly   the VISA was granted to Mr. Rohit Gandotra and his wife Mrs. Shweta Gandotra to visit UAE. It is vehemently contended that there was no lapse or deficiency on the part of the Ops as they have no control and supervision over the embassy of foreign countries in the matter of grant/non-grant of VISA to any person. It is submitted that the UAE is an independent sovereign nations having its own laws and regulations and that every sovereign country, including India, is entitled to regulate the laws relating to visit of foreign nationals by allowing or refusing to the VISA to foreign nationals.

                The next plea is that the alternate trip was offered to the complainant by the Ops, but the same was refused by the complainant as is evident from the whatsapp conversation Annexure R/2. It is contended that despite the air booking were non-refundable being peak season i.e. Christmas and new year days, even then, due to the goodwill and persistent efforts of Ops, the partial refunds have been made to the complainant and his friend qua booking amount and thus the present complaint being baseless and merit less is liable to be dismissed.

9.             Evidently, both the families i.e. the family of the complainant and the family of Shri Rohit Gandotra had planned to visit any foreign country during the winter vacation of their children and accordingly, air tickets and vacation package were arranged through OPs for their journey to Dubai(UAE) w.e.f. 22.12.2017 to 27.2.2017; therefore, there was no reason for the complainant to ask the Ops to cancel the air tickets and vacation package. We have minutely perused and gone through the whatsapp conversation(Annexure R/2), which reveals that the complainant was in constant touch with OP No.2  w.e.f. 20.12.2017  and that he was very keen, eager and anxious to know the status of grant of visa Ms.Aayana Gandotra till late on 21.12.2017. It is not in doubt that the root cause of the failure of air trip to Dubai was the non grant of VISA to said Ms.Aayana Gandotra, so, it just a figment of imagination of OPs to contend that air trip was cancelled at the instance of complainant. Therefore, the contention of the OPs that the air journey to Dubai was cancelled at the asking of complainant carry no force and substance and accordingly, the same is rejected.

10.            A close perusal of VISA application Annexure R/1, reveals that certain objections were raised by the embassy necessitating the re-submission of the application on 21.12.2017. The Ops were expected to share the objections, qua the VISA application of Aayana, raised by the Embassy with the complainant, but the Ops neither shared the same with the complainant nor bothered to place the same before us. The complainant during his whatsapp conversation with OP No.2 has expressed his doubts with regard to certain errors in the VISA application of Ms.Aayana, so it was binding upon the Ops to dispel the valid & genuine doubts as entertained by the complainant but the Ops have preferred not to disclose the details, qua errors as occurred in the VISA application of Aayana for the reasons best known to them. As per Annexure R-1, it is evident that the qualification of said Aanaya Gandotra was wrongly shown as “BACHELOR OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES”. The OPs have failed to clarify as to how the said error occurred on their part. Moreover, the OPs have placed the page no.1 only on record as Annexure R-1, out of total 11 no. of pages. The reasons of withholding the remaining 10 pages of Annexure R-1 have neither been clarified nor explained. In our considered opinion, the Ops had submitted the VISA application of Aayana in the UAE Embassy with certain errors, which ultimately had led to the non-grant of VISA to said Aayana till the evening of 21.12.2017.

11.            It is correct that the travel agencies like the Ops have no control over the embassies in the matter of grant /non-grant of VISA to the foreigners, but after the receipt of booking amount from the consumers like the complainant, it becomes their duty to take immediate and prompt action in the direction of initiation of VISA related process. In the present case, it is not the case of the Ops that there was delay in the supply of required documents to them by Rohit Gandotra. Admittedly, the major portion of the payment i.e. Rs. 2,88,000/- out of Rs. 3,18,862/- was made on 08.12.2017, by said Rohit Gandotra, but the VISA process was initiated as per VISA application(Annexure R/1) on 14.12.2017 and thus there was delay of 6 days. Since, the air trip To Dubai was fixed for 22.12.2017, it was incumbent upon the Ops to take immediate and prompt action in the matter by initiating the VISA related process within a day or two after 08.12.2017, when major part of the payment was received. Had the Ops applied for VISA of Aayana to UAE embassy earlier, then the objections raised, if any, could have been removed well within time and thus, the Ops had been negligent while initiating the VISA related process of Aayana.           

12.            From the above discussion, it is crystal clear that Op’s deficient services to the complainant had spoiled the planned joint tour of the co-complainant’s family; thus, the complainant is entitled to be compensated by Ops No.1 & 2 jointly and severally                  

13.            Coming to the relief, it is found that a sum of Rs. 1,54,688/-(as per affidavit Annexure C-A) has already been refunded out of Rs.4,47,606/-. In the present complaint, following relief has been claimed:

1. The entire cost of package after adjusting                =Rs.252918.00

Rs.194688/- (i.e. Rs.447606 minus Rs.194688/-)

2. The difference of usual trip to Hua Hin                     =Rs.1,20,000.00

(if timely taken as the Dubai tour booked

With Respondents)

3. Hotel charges for staying  for one night                    =Rs.14 000/-

in Gurgaon on 22.12.2017

4. Compensation for harassment, in convenience          =Rs.7,00,000/-

and loss of time of enjoyment to complainant

and his family

5. Litigations expenses and Misc exp.                          =Rs.55,000.00

Total = Rs.11,41,918.00

 

 

14.            As per discussion made above, the complainant is entitled to the balance amount of Rs.2,92,918/-(Rs.447606-154688) along with interest. The compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- claimed on account of difference between the expenses incurred in the usual trip to Hua Hin and Dubai is declined. Further, the prayer for compensation for Rs.14,000/- on account of Hotel charges for staying for one night in Gurugram on 22.12.2017 is also declined for want of  any credible  proof.

 15.           In the light of above observations, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed with the following directions:-

1. The Ops No.1 & 2 are directed to disburse the amount of Rs.2,92,918/- in the account of the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the present complaint  till its realization.
2. The Ops No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment along with Rs.5,500/-as cost of litigation charges.

 

16.            The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:21.12.2022

 

 

          Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini             Satpal

                  Member                  Member                          President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                           

     Satpal

                                            President