( Passed on 04/03/2020)

Per Smt. Chandrika Bais, Hon’ble Member

1. The complainant filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as under.
2. The opponent published an advertisement in ‘Lokmat’ pertaining to ‘Adbhut Europe Tour,  2016.’  After getting details of the world tour, opponent issued booking certificate to the complainant and her spouse on date 25/4/2016 by paying part payment consideration of Rs. 80,000/- Complainant complied her part by paying of entire money to the tour name as ‘Adbhut Tour 2016’ on dated 6/5/2016. The OP assured to complainant to issue valid passport in this amount only. Complainant’s passport No. is M0788703 and passport Number of his spouse is J27433726.  Also opponent has taken a responsibility of logging  and Visa clearance facilities. For this, complainant had to conduct biometric test for getting visa. So, she had to visit to Hyderabad (AP). On date 26/04/2016. And also completed all the formalities which are required for getting Visa. Despite of completing the facilities and supply of necessary documents which were been asked to submit, the biometric test of complainant could not be conducted. Therefore complainant again asked to come to Hyderabad from Yavatmal on date 4/5/2016. Complainant and his spouse were following the instructions given by Ms. Shraddha Raut, Store Manager, at Nagpur. Shri Hariprasad Rama, Head Operation and Nevial Mistry, Manager Foreign Tours, from time to time. That all the above mentioned persons are the employees and concerned officers of the opponent company. On date 6/5/2016, the complainant has been asked by company to remit the entire tour money so the complainant paid his  and his spouse total payment of Rs. 2,42,200/-  in the account of opponent with the Axis Bank bearing Account No. 911020052928597 in cash vide cash slip No. M-599085. For this, Complainant had paid Rs. 80,000/- as booking amount and later on he had paid Rs. 1,62,200/-. Receipts of which are attached on record.
3. The World Tour has been scheduled to start on 14/5/2016 and all the expenditure which includes flight charges, staying  at different nations  with the hotels reserved by opponent co. as well as meals expenditure including in that tour money, as per agreed by both parties.  As per direction of the opponent co.  The complainant and  her spouse  visited to Nagpur on date 14/5/2016 and they got shocking surprise that  complainant has been informed that her Visa has not been cleared by the opponent company and therefore she cannot join her husband to travel for world tour. The opponent narrated reason her non issuance of Visa for having failure  of biometric test on account of Mehandi marks upon  her hands. Complainant has relied and submitted the entire office copy of criminal Writ petition No. 500 of 2016 which was filed by the opponent before Hon’ble High Court at Nagpur. So, only Shri Jawahar Choithram Govindani , the husband of complainant had to go to World tour with opponent company and the husband of the complainant was required to move alone by leaving the complainant back for the non compliance of Visa by the opponents who have taken the responsibility of getting visa for both. The spouse of complainant completed his world tour moving to Doha, Paris and Switerzerland and finally landed back to Nagpur on 21/5/2016. Therefore the complainant here submitted that only because of highly deficient service and unfair trade practice, complainant has to suffer mentally, physically and financially. As per prayer of the complainant ,  to declare the opponent have made deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice upon complainant  by not  obtaining Visa  and to join the company of her spouse to move to Adbhut Europe Tour, conducted by the opponent.  Even opponent have forfeited the money of complainant on account of certain bookings etc. With the rest of the hotels and restaurant for the journey of the complainant is unconsumed and unused. The complainants requested to direct the opponent to pay the quantum compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- towards the compensation  of his unused Adbhut Europe Tour and to pay Rs. 50,000/- against litigation charges.
4. Opponent  admitted  that the Complainant had booked Adbhut Europe Tour for complainant and her husband, for the payment of Rs. 1,62,200/- for both including Visa, Lodging and breakfast. For Visa purpose, complainant had been called at Hyderabad. On 26/4/2016 Mr. Jawahar Govindani’s visa was process and the same was received on 10/05/2016 and Mrs. Sapna Govindani ones again visited the VFS Centre on 4/5/2016 and registered her biometrics  and submitted that documents but VFS Centre authorities did not entertain her due to mehandi marks on her hand. Thus, Mrs. Sapna Govindanis biometric appointed was rescheduled and the same was taken on 4/5/2016 as per availability. However, Mrs. Sapna Govindani’s visa was not received from the Consulate. Looking at the time taken by the consulate to process the visa on 13/05/2016, Mr. Jawahar Govindani and Mrs. Sapna Govindani decided that only Mr. Jawahar Govindani would travel on the tour and Mrs. Sapna Govindani’s booking will be cancelled. Finally, Mrs. Sapna Govindani’s visa was received on 17/5/2016 four days after the date of departure. Opponent further said that Mr. Jawahar and Mrs. Sapna Govindani booked the tour on 14/10/2015 and at that time made the payment of Rs. 80,000/- and thereafter balance payment of Rs. 1,62,200/- was received only on 6/5/2016 as per the payment schedule appearing in the booking condition. The balance tour was to be paid 45 days prior to the departure date. Means this couple is supposed to make payment of the balance tour cost on or before 30/03/2016. Even after the tour, by the complainant’s husband travelled happily without any problem and action but complainant Sapna Govindani has lodged the police complaint with PSO Sadar, Nagpur on false allegations of cheating of Rs. 2,42,000/- and after the same respondent No. 1 police authorities have issued impugned notice to the petitioner company and other office bearers of the petitioner company. Though the dispute is of civil nature and there is no such cheating or miss-appropriation done on the part of the company. The petitioner company has given a detailed reply to the concerned Police officer submitting that there is no ground for complaint and if at all there is any dispute, it is of civil nature.
5. Opponent had submitted the company’s “Terms & Conditions” of summer 2015. Also opponent had submitted certified true copy of the resolution passed by the board committee of Cox & Kings limited on 1^st April 2016 held at turner Morrison building, 1^st floor, 16, bank street, fort, Mumbai 400001. And also payment and schedule for Duniya Dekho (How to book), etc. Further opponent mentioned that granting/rejection of Visa are the sole discretion of embassy/consulate. We only act as a facilitator for obtaining visas. You may be required to appear personally before the embassy/consulate for any interview(s) providing biometric. The Company  shall under no circumstances be held liable or responsible for rejection of visas and any other incidental or consequential loss, damages, cost or expenses. If you are unable to travel on the tour originally booked by you because either you could not get your Visa in time or due to an error on the part of the Embassy/Consulate an incorrect Visa is issued to you, you shall have the option to postpone your tour to any other future date or transfer your tour to any other tour and in such case the amendment fee shall apply in addition to cancellation charges. But complainant did not intimate to opponent regarding her tour.
6. In the written statement of opponent mentioned the law and jurisdiction in this law, the opponent cleared that in case of any dispute regarding tour, first the dispute should be resolved by way of mediation. The mediator shall be appointed by the company. If the dispute is not settled by mediation within 30 days, then such dispute may be settled in accordance with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitrators decision shall be final and binding and both the parties. And  if the dispute goes on, then the parties are free to go to the competent Court/Forum/Tribunals in Mumbai only. But the complainant have not sought redressals through the mechanism of arbitration. On this ground only, the complaint should be dismissed. Furthermore, this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction for  the trial.
7. Opponent relied upon the orders of the Sub Court in the matter of:-

1. K Anand Vs. Cox & Kings Limited, dated 12/01/2015
2. S. Nagaraja & Ors. Vs. M/s Cox & Kings, dated 21/10/2011
3. Mr. Pratap Shah & Anr. Vs. M/s  Cox & Kings Pvt. Ltd. And Anr., dated 18/7/2008 in case No. 14/2008
4. Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2508.

8. We have heard both the sides and also gone  through the documents attached by complainant and opponent. From above facts, it is clear that  complainant is a consumer of opponent. For Adbhut Europe Tour, complainant had paid Rs. 2,42,200/-  for the Govindani couple. But at the time of Visa, biometric test at Hyderabad had been taken. But due to Mehandi marks on the hands of complainant, she could not get the Visa. Opponent informed her and called her again for biometric test. But  her Visa could not reach to her before departure to tour. She got her Visa after four days from her husband departed to Europe Tour. As she could not join to her husband, she get harassed and lodged a Police complaint in Sadar Police Station, Nagpur. As per the written statement of opponent, they have submitted rules & regulations of company, how to book tour, if there is dispute between parties, they should go for mediation or arbitration in Mumbai Only. But the copy of rules and regulations was not provided to complainant by opponent till the party reaches to Forum. So complainant was not aware for the rules of the company. When complainant and her husband  had paid total Rs. 2,42,200/- to opponent including Visa, lodging, breakfast, etc. The opponent should be aware that his client should get the Visa and necessary facilities. Because client are paying huge amount to them. But opponent had not taken due care of his clients that if everyone got Visa and other necessary facilities. Even the complainant  got her  Visa after 4  days, after her husband departed to Europe tour. It was the responsibility of opponent to inform complainant regarding delaying in Visa. But opponent did not inform to complainant and the husband of complainant had to travel alone for Europe Tour. The amount deposited by complainant is wasted. If complainant would have been informed by opponent regarding the delay in her Visa, they  would have  postponed their Europe Tour. The Complainant relied upon the judgment of  the  Hon’ble National Commission  in the case of Cox & Kings Ltd. Vs. Bahnisikha Ghatak, dated 31/10/2017 in support of her contentions.
9. In above paragraph No.  7,  opponent relied the judgments are old. So, this judgments cannot be considered. Opponent refunded Rs. 20,000/- to complainant on date 29/1/2016. But opponent had not refunded complainant’s full amount. This is the deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. Hence following order is passed.

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. Opponent Nos. 1 & 2 to give Rs.1,01,100/- to complainant and 6 percent interest per annum from date  14/05/2016   till the realization.
3. Opponent Nos. 1 & 2 to give Rs. 20,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- for the cost of complaint.
4. The opponent Nos. 1 & 2, jointly and severally shall comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receiving of copy of judgment.
5. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.
6. The complainant shall get return both the Xerox bunches of complaint.