Order No. 20 dt. 23/09/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the compliant on 28.5.12 booked three seats for a tour to Europe from Kolkata and back with the o.p. After the booking of the said tour one of the representatives of the company met the complainant at RBI, Kolkata and collected booking amount. The complainant paid Rs.1,20,000/- to the representative of o.p. and subsequently the complainant paid Rs.4,09,887/- by Rs.1,76,097/- in Indian currency and by 3345 Euro i.e. Rs.2,33,790/- in several installments. The complainant afterwards came to learn that without prior discussion with them the company changed the date of departure from 23.6.12 to 7.7.12 and he got the said information six days before the date of earlier scheduled date of departure. On 30.6.12 the complainant received a letter from the company of o.p. whereby it was informed that visa of his brother was withheld on the ground not provided proof of sufficient means of subsistence. The complainant wrote a letter to the French Visa office to reconsider the case and requested the company to arrange for the visa. The complainant repeatedly called the o.p. to know the fate of the said letter and whenever the complainant found that no reply was given two days prior the dater of departure he cancelled the tour, he sought for refund of the money. The o.p. did not apply for cancellation of air tickets booked for them and provided for the tour on 7.7.12 without giving back the passport, pass book etc.
On 19.7.12 the complainant again wrote a letter asking for the refund of the money but no reply was given and o.p. made allegations that since the complainant cancelled the tour programme less than two days prior to the date of departure, as such, as per company’s rule the complainant was not entitled for any refund. The complainant further stated that the company got intimation from French Visa office on 19.6.12 regarding the withheld of his brother’s visa. The o.p. booked the air tickets for them including his brother on 28.6.12 and the complainant was informed regarding cancellation of his brother’s visa on 30.6.12. But before sending letter to the complainant, the o.p. excluded the brother of the complainant from the tour. The complainant requested repeatedly to arrange visa for his brother failing which refund the entire sum of Rs.4,09,887/- and the complainant clearly stated to o.p. that it was not acceptable for them to proceed on tour leaving his brother.
On the basis of the said fact the complainant prayed for total sum of Rs.4,09,887/- with bank interest, compensation of Rs.12 lakhs and for other reliefs.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant booked for the said tour programme and after accepting the booking conditions, he signed the agreement for himself and on behalf of his wife Nita Bhatacharya and his brother Ashok Bhattacharya and it was declared in the booking form that he understood and accepted the terms and conditions and agreed to abide by the visa cancellation policy of the company. In the event of a dispute arising out of a contract the settlement can be made through mediation. It was stated that the complainant approached the company for the purpose of booking RBI European tour for himself along with his wife and brother. The tour was scheduled to depart on 23.6.12 but due to unavoidable circumstances the departure date was shifted to 7.7.12. The complainant at the time of booking was provided of the documents including the terms and conditions. In order to avail the said tour the complainant was required to have a valid UK and Sehengen visa. The o.p. after receiving the documents from the complainant processed the UK visa. After receiving the UK visa the o.p. immediately applied for the sehengen visa to the French Consulate. But the French Consulate granted the sehengen visa to the complainant and his wife and rejected the visa of Ashok Bhattacharya and the said information was given to o.p. on 29.6.12 and o.p. immediately informed the said fact to the complainant. After the said fact the complainant orally and subsequently by a letter dt.5.7.12 cancelled the tour and asked for refund of money. The o.p. informed the complainant vide letter dt.29.6.12 that the cancellation charges for the complainant and his wife was 100% as per booking conditions and with regard to the complainant’s brother Mr. Ashok Bhattacharya the o.p. was willing to refund a sum of Rs.55,672/-. The complainant did not accept the refund on behalf of his brother and thereafter approached the Consumer Forum and subsequently, filed this case. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above the o.p. prayed for dismissal of the caes.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant was informed a few days prior to the departure for the tour that visa was not available for his brother.
- Whether the o.p. informed the complainant immediately after receiving the information from French Consulate regarding non availability of visa of the brother of the complainant.
- Whether the complainant can suomoto cancelled the tour and will get the amount paid by him.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant booked three seats for a tour of Europe from Kolkata and he paid the amount of Rs.4,09,887/- to o.p. The o.p. scheduled the date of journey on 23.6.12, but subsequently the date was changed from 23.6.12 to 7.7.12 which created an immense trouble to the complainant to get permission from the office. Subsequently on 30.6.12 he received information from o.p. that French visa office withheld the visa for his brother for not providing the sufficient means of subsistence. The complainant after coming to know of the said fact made an appeal to French visa office but no reply was received, just prior to the date journey the complainant again requested the o.p. for proper visa from French Consulate and he also informed that if the visa is not available the tour may be cancelled and the entire amount be returned, but no action was taken from the side of o.p. in spite of having such letter from the complainant. The o.p. advised the complainant and his wife to avail the tour to which the complainant did not agree and subsequently the complainant demanded the money and o.p. agreed to return only an amount of Rs.55,672/- to which the complainant did not agree to receive the amount and ultimately fined this case.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that there was total ignorance of the claim of the complainant though the money was received by o.p. but visa was not available in respect of the brother of the complainant was not informed to the complainant earlier and the complainant lawfully demanded the said money which was denied by o.p. for which the complainant prayed for relief.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. emphasized that o.p. has not hand in issuing visa, only two visas were issued in the name of complainant and his wife and the said fact was informed to the complainant and after receiving the information regarding the rejection of visas of Ashok Bhattacharya the o.p. informed the said fact to the complainant and it was also agreed by o.p. that the amount can be refunded from the side of o.p. to the tune of Rs.55,672/-, since the complainant did not accept the said amount the amount could not be disbursed.
So far as the argument advanced by ld. lawyer for the o.p. that in case of cancellation of the booking two days prior to the journey the cancellation charge would be deducted to the extent of 100% therefore the complainant will not be entitled to get any claim as made by him.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. emphasized that the complainant was informed regarding the change of date of journey from 25.6.12 to 4.7.12 and the complainant had ample opportunity to seek leave from RBI and as such o.p. cannot be given any blame regarding the shifting of the said date or non availability of leave by the complainant from his place of work. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the o.p. has claimed that the complainant will not be get the relief as prayed for.
Having regard to the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the complainant was desirous to visit Europe countries and for that purpose he booked three seats for a happy tour to Europe from Kolkata and he from time to time paid the amount of Rs.4,09,887/- in several installments. In order to prove the same the complainant filed the documents which have not been disputed by o.p. It is found from the materials on record that the date earlier fixed for departure on 23.6.12 and the same was subsequently shifted on 7.7.12 and the said fact was informed to the complainant on 18.6.12 i.e. only six days before the earlier scheduled date of departure which caused immense trouble to the complainant to get permission from the office.
Subsequently it is also found that the complainant was informed that the French visa was not available in respect of the brother of the complainant for which the complainant requested the French Consulate to reconsider the said decision and the o.p. assured the complainant that the o.p. would make all sorts of arrangement for the visa of the brother of the complainant. Ultimately the o.p. could not procure the visa from the French consulate and the complainant was asked to avail of the tour without companying his brother which the complainant did not agree and he cancelled the tour. The said fact was informed by the o.p. to the complainant regarding the availing of the tour on 6.7.12 i.e. one day prior to the date of journey. The complainant became very annoyed regarding the said casual approach of o.p. and ultimately he had no other alternative but to cancel the said tour programme since the complainant all through expressed his desire that he cannot proceed to Europe without his brother i.e. it was not possible for him to proceed with the said tour in absence of his brother. The sentimental value of the complainant was totally ignored by o.p. and assured all through that they will make necessary arrangement for procuring the visa of his brother, ultimately nothing was done on behalf of the o.p. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and since the complainant being a senior office of RBI paid the entire amount to the o.p. for travelling of the tour programme conducted by o.p. and because of non-cooperation on the part of o.p. the complainant could not avail of the tour, the complainant must be compensated. The o.p. claimed that in case of cancellation of the tour programme two days prior to the date journey the complainant would not be entitle to get any return of money in respect of the payment made for himself and for his wife. But from the facts and circumstances on record clearly established the fact that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. and there was harassment on the part of the o.p. upon the complainant and to his family members. Accordingly, we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.467/2013 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. The o.p. is directed to refund the full sum of Rs.4,09,887/- (Rupees four lakhs nine thousand eight hundred eighty seven) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
