PER:HON’BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

            The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred  to as ‘the Act’) is at the instance of opposite parties  to assail the final order/Judgment being order No.21 dated 09.02.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit I (in short, ‘Ld. District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.687/2013.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the respondent Sri Debapriya Adhikary under Section 12 of the Act with the direction upon the appellants/OPs to refund Rs.1,64,970/- along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- only within 30 days from the date of communication of the order, in default, an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till its full realisation.

          The respondent herein being complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum stating that on 17.05.2013 he booked tickets on internet through Make My Trip (MMT) to travel to Paris, Calgary, Victoria in order to perform in concerts.  The OPs booked the tickets through Seattle, which requires US transit Visa.  However, MMT/OP did not intimate him that they would require a US transit Visa.  The complainant has stated that the OP enquired about the travel programme and health insurance of the complainant but no intimation was given about the transit Visa.  At Mumbai Airport the complainant was stopped from boarding since the said transit Visa was not with them.  The complainant tried to contact with OP but no response came from their end.  After convincing the officers of the Air lines, the authority allowed the complainant to board.  Since all the tickets were booked through Seattle, the complainant tried to contact with OP to get the tickets changed but it yielded no result.  Finally, the brother of the complainant visited the Branch office of MMT situated at Kolkata to cancel the ticket and for re-booking of the same but the attempt was failed as the ticket was booked on on line.  Finally the complainant visited the office of Airlines, Air France to cancel the ticket but this could not be done from their end as the ticket was booked through a promotional offer which was also unknown to the complainant.  Thereafter, the tickets from Victoria to Mumbai were cancelled but no refund was assured as the Airlines Authority told the complainant that the refund would depend on the booking agent.  Complainant had to spend extra amount of 1640 Euros to book the new tickets for their journey.  On the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of OP, the complainant has prayed for some reliefs, viz.- refund the amount of cancel tickets and additional 1640 Euros, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs.

          The Appellants being OPs by filing written version disputed the claim of the complainant.  The OPs have stated that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party like Air France.  The OPs have also stated that as the transaction was an online transaction and the bookings were directly made by the complainant, there is no deficiency in services on the part of them and as such the complaint should be dismissed.

          On evaluation of materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned final order/ judgment allowed the complaint lodged by the respondent with certain directions upon the appellants/OPs, as indicated above.  Challenging the said order, the OPs have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          Ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that in page -3 of User Agreement it has been categorically mentioned that the travel bookings done by MMT are subject to applicable requirements of Visa which are to be obtained by the individual traveller.  Therefore, the Ld. District Forum has committed a wrong by holding the MMT responsible for such deficiency.  Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has also submitted that when the respondent himself claimed that he had gotten his tickets cancelled through AIR France and AIR France has failed to refund them, the AIR France should have been impleded as a party and non-inclusion of necessary party caused fatal to the case and on that ground also, the Ld. District Forum should have dismissed the complaint.

          The respondent, who appeared in person has contended that he had no reason to visit USA and the appellants could have disclosed that for the purpose of journey Via Seattle, a transit Visa would be required.  Had it been done, he could have collected the US transit Visa as he had sufficient time in hand to obtain the same.  He has also contended that as he has only cancelled the tickets under compelling circumstances through AIR France, question of impleading them as a party does not arise. 

          We have given due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the appellants and respondent in person and scrutinized the materials on record.

          Admittedly, on 17.05.2013 the respondent had booked flight tickets for himself and for one Sri Samanwaya Sarkar through the website of MMT for a few foreign destinations like Paris, Calgary, Victoria etc.  The flight tickets included a booking through Seattle, USA.  The whole trouble started as one valid US transit Visa is required before undertaking the said travel.  The materials on record speaks that  the respondent while tried to board stopped from doing so by the Airport Authorities since he was not having a valid US transit Visa. 

          In order to shirk off their liability the appellants had given emphasis to E-Ticket wherein it has been mentioned – “Before the commencement of your travel, kindly check that you have collected all the valid documents required for travel, such as passport, air tickets, valid visa(s) etc. contact the consulate /airline for further details”.

          In this regard, the Ld. District Forum has observed – “This plea of OP cannot be acceptable since it was the OP’s duty to make him know that the transit visa would be necessary for their travel and the transit visa would not be provided by the OP.  The OPs should have been careful enough to inform the complainant to arrange his transit visa by himself.  No document shows that OPs informed the complainant that they would not provide the transit visa”.

          The reasons assigned by the Ld. District Forum appears to be convincing because the reservation details or Itinerary of E-Ticket is for a general purpose and particularly, when the MMT issued ticket for different foreign destinations including Seattle (USA), the MMT should have specifically mentioned to the respondent about the need of obtaining US transit Visa to undertake such journey and had it been done, the respondent would have nothing to say about the lacuna or shortcoming on the part of MMT.  Therefore, the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the appellants could not inspire us. 

          At the time of hearing, Ld. Advocate for the appellants has drawn our attention to the Force Majeure Circumstances as mentioned in user agreement.  In the said clause it has been mentioned that if MMT is informed in advance of such situation where dishonour of booking may happen, it will make its best efforts to provide similar alternative to its customer or refund the booking amount after reasonable service charges, if supported and refunded by that respective service operators.  Evidently, the respondent has made several contacts including the contact through his brother in the office of MMT at Kolkata but it turned a deaf ear.  Moreover, there is no document whatsoever that the appellant has made any offer to provide alternative arrangement to its customer or refund the booking the amount.  It is also not forthcoming that the MMT has ever make any communication with Air France to settle the claim of the respondent.  Therefore, Air France does not appear to be a necessary party for adjudication of the dispute.

         Undisputedly, the respondent had to face serious problem in a foreign country to get arrangement of their new tickets after canceling the old ticket for which they had to pay extra 1640 Euro for rearrangement of the tickets.

          Considering the facts and circumstances, it appears to us that the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in holding that there was deficiency in services on the part of OPs/appellants and proceeded to pass the order.  The impugned order appears to be based on proper reasoning and as such it should not be interfered with.

          For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed on contest.  However, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.

          The Impugned final order/Judgment is hereby affirmed.  The respondent/complainant is at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,79,970/- deposited by the appellants/Opposite Parties in the commission after 90 days from date the period of appeal is over. 

          The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit- I for information with reference to CC/13/687.