By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is a practising doctor and fellow of the Royal College of
Edinburgh. On 29/10/2017, he was conferred with FRCP in a convocation held at the
college in United Kingdom. In order to participate in the convocation Programme
along with his wife and elder son, the complainant approached the opposite parties for arrangements of Visa, Air tickets, hotel rooms etc. The opposite parties made believe the complainant that they are competent to provide services as required by the complainant. On the basis of the assurance given by the second opposite party , the complainant made advance of Rs. 71,000/- (Rupees seventy one thousand only) by drawing a cheque of HDFC Bank dated 14/08/2017 in favour of the second opposite party. On 09/09/2017 the complainant issued other two cheques dated 09/09/2017 to the second opposite party covering total amount of Rs.3,64,500/-(one for Rs. 1,11,000 and another for Rs. 2,53,500/-). The complainant also paid an amount in cash to the second opposite party on different occasions. The payments to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- was made on 28/09/2017, Rs. 60,000/- was made on 04/10/2017, Rs. 1,00,000/- was made on 09/10/2017, Rs. 33,000/- was made on 13/10/2017, Rs. 50,000/- was made on 19/10/2017, Rs. 25,000/- was paid on 20/10/2017 and Rs. 50,000/- was made on 10/11/2017. According to the complainant all the above stated amounts were paid through Mr. Abilash, who was an employee of the opposite parties. But the opposite parties did not issue any receipts against the amount received from the complainant showing the details of expenditure incurred for different services related to the trip to the United Kingdom. The opposite parties created anxious moments for the entire family of the complainant as the opposite parties could not produce Visas well before the date of travel. It is contended by the complainant that the opposite parties failed to exert necessary skill, ability, experience or labour and appeared insensitive and was casual in the matter of procuring visas to the complainant. So the complainant contacted the officials of Edinburgh University for Visa. Then the officials of Edinburgh University interfered in the matter and consequent to the interference, the Chennai consulate of United Kingdom issued visas to the complainant and his family. The service of the opposite parties in procuring visas were deficient. According to the complainant, the rooms arranged by opposite parties in U.K. for the family of the complainant were absolutely unfit and uncomfort. The complainant had to find out other rooms for stay by spending his own money. The service provided by the opposite parties in connection with arrangement of rooms were also deficient. After his return from U.K, the complainant informed the opposite parties about the grievances. But on 26/03/2018 the second opposite party issued a notice to the complainant demanding to pay Rs. 61,550/-(Rupees Sixty one thousand five hundred and fifty only). As per the notice issued by the second opposite party, the opposite parties had incurred total expenses of Rs.4,19,550/-(Rupees Four lakh nineteen thousand five hundred and fifty only) and the complainant had paid only Rs. 3,58,000/- (Rupees Three lakh and fifty eight thousand only). The complainant also received a statement of accounts along with the notice. The complainant issued a reply notice dated 04/04/2018 stating that allegations are false and baseless and he had given excess amount to the opposite parties and the opposite parties did not account the amount given through cheques. It is contended by the complainant that he had given a total Rs. 7,92,500/-(Rupees Seven lakh ninety two thousand and five hundred only) to the opposite parties. It is stated in the complaint that the amount collected from the complainant is exorbitant and notice issued by the opposite parties show the actual amount incurred for arranging trip to U.K. for the complainant. So the opposite parties are liable to refund Rs. 3,73,950/- to the complainant. On 18/08/2018 the complainant issued another notice to the opposite parties demanding to refund Rs. 3,73,950/-. But the opposite parties not replied to the notice and even not paid the amount as claimed in the notice. So the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances as stated in the complaint. The complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 3,73,950/-(Rupees Three lakh Seventy three thousand nine hundred and fifty only) as the amount exorbitantly collected by the opposite parties. The complainant claimed to refund Rs. 33,000/-(Rupees Thirty three thousand only) from the opposite parties as the Visa service charge collected from the complainant. The complainant prayed for another direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) to the complainant for the expenses incurred for hotel accommodation in U.K. The complainant claimed another Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) from the opposite parties as the cost of the proceedings.
2. The complaint is admitted on file and issued notices to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed versions separately.
3. The first opposite party is Akbar Travels of India Private Limited, represented by Mr. Mohammed Rahman, who is the Manager of Manjeri Branch. The opposite party contented that the complaint is not maintainable and denied the allegations raised in the complaint. It is admitted that second opposite party is the branch of the first opposite party. The opposite party contented that if any dispute was arisen between the second opposite party and its customer, the first opposite party is not responsible for the same and it is for them to settle the dispute between themselves. According to the opposite party, there is misjoinder of necessary party in the complaint. So the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
4. The second opposite party is the branch of the first opposite party and represented by its Manager. The opposite party also contended that the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party also denied allegation raised in the complaint except those are specifically admitted. The opposite party stated that the complainant availed services of Visas, air tickets and hotel rooms from the office of the opposite party with the help of its employee named Abhilash. According to the opposite party, Mr. Abhilash is necessary party in the proceedings and impleading Mr. Abhilash is helpful to know the details of transaction took place between opposite party and the complainant. As per the records available in the office of the opposite party, the opposite parties spent a total amount of Rs. 5,21,088/-(Rupees Five lakh twenty one thousand and eighty eight only) for arranging Visas, tour packages and air tickets etc . According to the opposite party, they spent Rs. 33,000/-(Rupees Thirty three thousand only) for availing Visas. The opposite party spent Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two lakh seventy thousand only) for tour package which includes Hotel, land cost, Room rent, food and vehicle etc. The opposite parties also spent Rs. 2,18,088/-(Rupees Two lakh Eighteen thousand and eighty eight only) for availing air tickets. But at the same time, the opposite party stated that the complainant paid only Rs. 4,35,500/-(Rupees Four lakh and thirty five thousand and five hundred only) and the complainant is indebted Rs. 85,588/- (Rupees Eighty five thousand five hundred and eighty eight only) to the opposite parties. According to the opposite party, entire payment was made through 3 cheques. As per cheque No. 751052, the complainant remitted Rs. 1,11,000/-. As per cheque No.000054 the complainant remitted Rs. 2,53,500/-(Rupees Two lakh fifty three thousand and five hundred only). As per cheque No.000051 the complainant remitted Rs. 71,000/-. The outstanding amount stated in the legal notice was Rs. 61,550/- as it prepared before inspecting the correct account of transaction. Actually the complainant owed Rs. 85,588/- to the opposite parties. The complainant did not remit any amount in cash in the office of the opposite parties as stated in the complaint except by the way of cheques. So the claim of payment in cash is false and baseless. The complainant did not paid Rs. 7,92,500/- (Rupees Seven lakh ninety two thousand and five hundred only) to the opposite parties. The outstanding debt shown as Rs. 4,19,550/-(Rupees Four lakh nineteen thousand five hundred and fifty only) is a clerical mistake committed in the legal notice. Actual incurred expense is Rs. 5,21,088/- (Rupees Five lakh twenty one thousand and eighty eight only) and the complainant remitted only Rs. 4,35,500/-(Rupees Four lakh thirty five thousand and five hundred only) through three cheques. There is no locus standi to the complaint and the complainant has to pay compensation to the opposite parties. So the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
5. The complainant and the opposite parties filed affidavits. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Exts. A1 to A4 documents. Ext. A1 document is the copy of legal notice dated 26/03/2018 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A2 document is the Direct Customer Ledger (D-2526-1718) from 01/04/2017 to 31/03/2018 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant along with Ext. A1 document. Ext. A3 document is the copy of legal notice dated 04/04/2018 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. A4 document is the copy of legal notice dated 18/08/2018 issued by the counsel of the complainant to the second opposite party. No documents marked from the side of the opposite parties. The opposite parties filed an application numbered as IA No. 224/2020 for cross examination of the complainant. The complainant objected the above said interim application on the ground that the complainant filed written chief affidavit along with documents. The Commission dismissed interim application due to lack of merit. But aggrieved by the order of this Commission made in IA No. 224/2020, the opposite parties approached the Hon’ble State Commission through R.P.No.12/2021. The Hon’ble State Commission set asided the order made in the IA No. 224/2021 and afforded an opportunity to cross examine the complainant. Later the complainant also filed an interim application numbered as IA 605/2022 to cross examine the opposite parties. The Commission considered the application and allowed to cross examine the opposite parties by the counsel appearing for the complainant. Both parties personally appeared before the Commission and cross examined by the other sides. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Second opposite party was examined as DW1.
6. Heard both sides in detail. Perused all documents. The points arisen for the consideration of the Commission are:-
Whether the opposite parties committed any kind of deficiency in service or unfair trade practices?
Then, the relief and cost?
7. The Commission considered point No.1 & 2 together:
The complainant stated that he approached the opposite parties for arranging visas, air tickets and room facilities in order to travel to UK in connection with his convocation along with his family to be held at Edinburgh. But the opposite parties failed to arrange Visas in time and due to the intervention of the Edinburgh University authorities, the complainant managed to secure visas in the final hours of scheduled departure. Moreover the rooms arranged by the opposite parties in U.K were not good to stay and as a result the complainant compelled to arrange other rooms by spending own money. After his return from U.K, when he raised complaint before the opposite parties, the opposite parties issued a notice dated 26/03/2018 to the complainant and same is marked by Ext.A1 document. As per Ext. A1 document, the opposite parties demanded to pay Rs. 61,550/-(Rupees Sixty one thousand five hundred and fifty only) as the balance amount of the expenses incurred for the trip. But in the version as well as in the affidavit of the opposite parties, it was explained that the complainant actually owed Rs. 85,558/- (Rupees eighty five thousand five hundred and fifty eight only) and the amount shown in the Ext. A1 document was a clerical mistake. According to the opposite parties, the total expenses incurred for arranging travel facilities to U.K came to the tune of Rs. 5,21,088/-(Rupees Five lakh twenty one thousand and eighty eight only). But the complainant paid only Rs. 4,35,500/- (Rupees Four lakh and thirty five thousand and five hundred only) through 3 cheques and other transactions allegedly took place is denied by the opposite parties.
8. According to the complainant there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Going through the evidences, the Commission finds that the details of expenses incurred by the complainant for arrangement of visas and hotel rooms are not produced before the Commission. The complainant did not mention the name of the hotel where he availed accommodation or produced any document to show that he personally paid for rooms in U.K. So the Commission is declined to make an order on that point. Moreover the details of Visa arrangement is not produced before the Commission by the complainant. It is admitted by the complainant that air tickets and rooms were arranged by the opposite parties. But the complainant failed to produce evidences to show factual condition of accommodation provided by the opposite parties. As long as there is no evidence contrary, it is possible to consider that the Visas and accommodations were arranged by the opposite parties. Moreover Ext.A2 document also reveals that Rs. 33,000/-(Rupees Thirty three thousand only) is spent by the opposite parties for the arrangement of Visas. So the Commission does not allow the prayer of the complainant with regard to refund of Rs. 33,000/- from the opposite parties as they allegedly spent for Visas. The Commission also declined to consider the prayer of the complainant for 1,00,000/- from the opposite parties as the amount spent by the complainant for availing accommodation. The complainant further alleged that the details of invoices were not given to the complainant irrespective of demand made by the complainant. The opposite parties are bound to give details of the expenses incurred for the trip to U.K. The opposite party has not denied the above allegation specifically in the version. So the Commission finds that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service in providing the details of journey to the complainant.
9. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties collected excess amount from the complainant for arranging travel facilities. According to the complainant he paid Rs. 4,35,500/- (Rupees Four lakh thirty five thousand and five hundred only) by issuing 3 cheques to the opposite parties. The complainant further stated that he also remitted a total of Rs. 3,58,000/- (Rupees Three lakh fifty eight thousand only) through Mr. Abhilash on different occasions in connection with the travel arrangements. At the time of cross examination, the complainant deposed that transaction took place in the presence of Mr. Abilash. According to him, he remitted Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees Fourty thousand only) on 28/09/2017, Rs. 60,000/-(Rupees Sixty thousand only) on 04/10/2017, Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) on 09/10/2017, Rs.33,000/-(Rupees Thirty three thousand only) on 19/10/2017, Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) on 13/10/2017, Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) on 20/10/2017, and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) on 10/11/2017. But on the contrary, the opposite parties denied the above said payment of Rs. 3,58,000/-(Rupees Three lakh fifty eight thousand only) in cash by the complainant. The opposite party has admitted that Mr. Abhilash was worked as an employee in the office of the second opposite party. According to the second opposite party there is non joinder of necessary party in the complaint and the above said Abhilash is to be impleaded in the proceedings. But the evidence adduced by the complainant would show that he remitted the amount of Rs. 3,58,000/-(Rupees Three lakh fifty eight thousand only) in cash to the opposite parties for arranging travel facilities. The complainant produced copy of Direct Customer Ledger (D-2526-1718) issued by the second opposite party along with legal notice dated 26/03/2018. The legal notice dated 26/03/2018 is produced by the complainant and same is marked as Ext. A1 document. The copy of Direct Customer Ledger is marked as Ext.A2 document by the Commission. The opposite parties not denied the contents of Ext.A2 document. At the time of cross examination, the second opposite party admitted that the customer Ledger Number of the complainant is D-2526-1718. The second opposite party also deposed that the above said ledger would show the payment made by the complainant . So, when going through Ext. A2 document, it can be find that the complainant remitted Rs. 3,58,000/-(Rupees Three lakh fifty eight thousand only) to the opposite party as stated in the complaint for availing travelling facilities in addition to the amount of Rs. 4,35,500/- (Rupees Four lakh thirty five thousand and five hundred only) through cheques. It has come out in evidence that the complainant had paid a total of Rs. 7,93,500/- (Rupees Seven lakh ninety three thousand and five hundred only) to the opposite parties for availing travelling facilities to U.K. At the same time the opposite party stated in the version and affidavit that the opposite party spent an amount of Rs. 5,21,088/-(Rupees Five lakh twenty one thousand and eighty eight only) for availing travelling facilities to the complainant. So considering all documents availed before the Commission it is crystal clear that the opposite parties have collected an excess amount of Rs. 2,72,412/- (Rupees Two lakh seventy two thousand four hundred and twelve only) from the complainant at the time providing travelling services. So the Commission finds that the opposite parties committed unfair trade practices towards the complainant by adopting deceptive practice as illegally collecting a huge amount from the complainant. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the damages of the complainant and the first opposite party cannot evade on frivolous excuses. So the complainant is succeeded in proving his case partly and complaint is allowed in the following manner:-
The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 2,72,412/-(Rupees Two lakh seventy two thousand four hundred and twelve only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of order.
The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only)
as compensation for the unfair trade practices committed against the
complainant.
The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant for the deficiency in service committed towards the complainant by the opposite parties.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant as the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within 30 day from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise the entire amount shall bear 9% interest from the date of this order till the realization.
Dated this 6th day of March , 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : Dr. Suresh Kumar.P (Complainant)
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A4
Ext. A1 : Document is the copy of legal notice dated 26/03/2018 issued by the
second opposite party to the complainant.
Ext. A2 : Document is the direct customer ledger(D-2526-1718) from 01-04-2017 to
31/03/2018 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant.
Ext. A3 : Document is the copy of legal notice dated 04/04/2018 issued by the
complainant to the opposite party.
Ext. A4 : Document is the copy of legal notice dated 18/08/2018 issued by the
counsel for the complainant to the second opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : DW1
DW1 : Mohammed Nuhman (Second opposite party)
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
CPR
