Dt. of filing – 26/06/2018
Dt. of Judgement – 05/07/2019
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant namely Smt. Devjani Bardhan under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party namely Director M/s. Jetchoice Tours and Travels Private Limited alleging deficiency in service on their part.
Case of the Complainant in short is that being allured by an advertisement by the Opposite Party in a newspaper on 12/11/2017, she booked the tour ‘European Delihgts’ starting on 05/05/2018 for 17 days and paid a total sum of Rs.6,33,000/-. She was to be accompanied by her husband and son. She furnished all the particulars beside Passport of herself, her husband and son well ahead on 15/3/2018 for clearing up the official formalities for VISA as the Opposite Party had taken the responsibility for the same as condition precedent. But strangely VISA was allowed by the ‘United Kingdom’ for the said tour but VISA for the tour in Italy was refused by the Consulate General of Italy in Kolkata on the ground that justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not provided. Due to refusal of the VISA, Complainant had to postpone the tour due to the fault and negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. So Complainant asked for return of the sum paid by her through a letter dated 29/5/2018 but the Opposite Party has not returned the amount and thus present complaint is filed by the Complainant praying to direct the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.6,33,000/-, to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint, copy of the advertisement by Opposite Party in Ananda Bazar Patrika, money receipts, acknowledgement by Opposite Party about receiving three Passports, tour highlights/Itinerary, copy of VISA allowed by United Kingdom, copy of refusal of VISA by Consulate of Italy and copy of letter dated 29/5/2018 sent by the Complainant to Opposite Party.
Opposite Party has contested the case by filing written version denying the material allegation made by the Complainant. It is the specific case of the Opposite Party that on 27th December, 2017 Opposite Party mailed the Complainant and her husband the Europe tour package, where it was clearly mentioned that the Company was not responsible for any VISA rejection and cancellation policy and the money deposited by the persons will not be refundable, if cancelled within 35 days prior to departure.
It is also contended by the Opposite Party that at the time of booking, Complainant had stated that she is financially sound to sponsor her husband and son and she will fulfil the financial documentations required by the Consulate. All the expenses will be borne by her with the statement of financial documents of Complainant, they got the U.K.VISA but with the self same financial documents when submitted, Italy Consulate cross checked with the husband of the Complainant over phone and found that he runs a separate business and possess strong IT file and thus they rejected the VISA as they found complete suppression of facts and falsification on the part of the Complainant and her husband. Thus the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
During the course of evidence, both the parties filed their respective affidavit-in-chief followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto.
Ultimately arguments have been advanced by both the parties. They have also filed the brief notes of argument.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party has mainly emphasised on the terms and condition stated in tour package, during his argument whereas Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has argued that refusal of VISA was due to the act of the Opposite Party and thus they had to postpone the tour.
So the following points require determination:-
- Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for discussions in order to avoid repetition.
Case of the Complainant is that she had booked the tour package ‘European Delight’ and had paid a sum of Rs.6,33,000/-, has not been denied by the Opposite Party. Only contention is that the VISA for the tour to Italy was refused by the Consulate of Italy in Kolkata which according to Complainant was due to the fault and negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. According to Opposite Party, in granting or refusal of VISA Company is no way responsible as per the condition of the tour package.
On perusal of the tour package/ Itinerary filed by the Complainant herself, it appears that under the heading ‘Tour cost includes’, it is specifically mentioned that “UK and Schengen VISA (Granting of VISA in the hands of the respective Consulates and Jetchoice is no way responsible for granting/refusal of VISA)”.
So it is apparent that as per the specific condition stated therein, for refusal of VISA, Opposite Party cannot be held responsible, if the Opposite Party discharges his function of placing or submitting the particulars provided by the party in order to obtain VISA.
Admittedly on submission of relevant papers or particulars, VISA for UK was allowed but it was refused by the Consulate of Italy. It appears from the document dated 7/5/2018, issued by Consulate of Italy in Kolkata that the refusal of VISA was on the ground “the information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of intended stay was not reliable”.
As per the terms & conditions in tour package regarding granting of VISA is in the hands of the respective Consulate and Company is no way responsible for granting /refusal of VISA clearly indicates that irrespective of the ground whatsoever may be for refusal, Opposite Party will not be responsible.
Much argument has been advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that the ground of refusal is due to justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not provided which according to him is stated in the said document in column (2) but same is not the case. The ground of refusal is stated in column (8) which is “the information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay were not reliable”. So the particulars submitted by the Complainant and her husband were found not reliable by the Consulate of Italy and that resulted in refusal of VISA.
If that be the case, Opposite Party cannot be held liable especially when there was specific terms in the tour package and the same was very much within the knowledge of the Complainant. The fact that the said tour package was mailed to Complainant in December, 2017 is not in dispute.
It may further be pointed out that in the tour package it is also specifically stated under the heading “payment terms and conditions” that cancellation 35 days prior to departure, no amount will be refunded. Apparently cancellation was done a day before the departure. It may be for the reason of not getting the VISA but in view of the specific terms and condition stated in the tour package, Complainant is not entitled to the refund of the money and thus this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/381/2018 is dismissed on contest.
