Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1056/2016

Kiran Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Domestic International Holiday Consultant - Opp.Party(s)

Rajan Mittal Adv.

25 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

 U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	1056 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	28.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	25.07.2017

 

                                       

                                       

Kiran Verma, aged 61 years, wife of Sh.Ashok Verma, resident of H.No.1482, Sector 4, Panchkula.  

...  Complainants.

Versus

Domestic International Holiday Consultant, Franchise of “Make My Trip” through its Proprietor situated at SCO 43-44, Level-I, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. 

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE: 

SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by: 

Sh.Rajan Mittal, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the OP.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

        The facts in issue are that the complainant contacted the OP for package of tour programme under the scheme European Bonanja-12/13 days with Make My Trip for two persons (complainant and her son) and the OP has taken the passport of the complainant and her son and gone through each and everything.  It is averred that the OP assured the complainant that the OP will arrange the tour as per the wish of the complainant and booked the tour for two persons @Rs.3,11,400/-, otherwise amount will be refunded. It is also averred that the complainant paid Rs.60,000/- to the OP as booking amount, which was confirmed vide mail dated 16.3.2015 and the balance amount of Rs.2,51,400/- was agreed to be paid by the complainant to the OP by 15.5.2015 after arrival of visa. However, the OP has failed to provide the tour and arrange the visa for the purpose nor it had refunded the booking amount of Rs.60,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant has booked the tour with some other agency for Singapore and Malaysia from 7th July, 2015 to 17th July, 2015 and has enjoyed the tour. Thereafter, the complainant sends legal notice but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the Opposite Party finalized the “European Bonanza” trip on having received the non-refundable booking amount towards the tour for a sum of Rs.60,000/- and issued the confirmation to that effect vide e-mail dated 16.3.2015 enumerating the itinerary as well as the applicable terms and conditions.  It is also stated that as per terms & conditions of the policy shared, the complainant was made clear that the deposit of Rs.30,000/- per person was non-refundable.  It is further stated that as soon as it was provided with proper documents, the Opposite Party immediately applied for the Visa.  However, the Visa for the complainant and her son was refused on 13.5.2015 by the Embassy of Italy in New Delhi on the ground that the information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable (Ann.-D Page/24 to 27) and the same was informed to the complainant (Ann.D).  It is submitted that the complainant and Opposite Party are bound by the Booking Terms & Conditions and according to the clauses of the terms & conditions, it has been provided that the Opposite Party merely works as a facilitator in applying for the Visa process and the ultimate authority to grant a Visa lies with the Embassy and the Opposite Party would be in no circumstances shall be held liable for any acts of the Embassy.  It is also submitted that the amount paid for the VISA is charged by the concerned embassy and not Opposite Party and hence the complainant is not entitled for the recovery of the same from the Opposite Party. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the complainant has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant has also filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

6]       The complainant booked package of 12/13 Days Tour to Europe in March, 2015 for herself and her son for a total amount of Rs.3,11,000/- from Opposite Party. She paid Rs.60,000/- as booking amount and the rest of the amount of Rs.2,51,400/- was payable to the Opposite Party by 15.5.2015 after the receipt of Visa.

 

7]       The Opposite Party as per the tour package, has to arrange for the requisite Visa for the said country.  The Opposite Party on the basis of necessary relevant information, accordingly applied for Visa for Smt.Kiran Verma and Abhishek Verma, but the same was refused by the Embassy of Italy, New Delhi on 13.5.2015 (Ann.-D Page/24 & 25) with the following observations:-

“the information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of intended stay was not reliable.”

 

8]      The Embassy of Italy vide their letter dated 13.5.2015 (Ann.D) while rejecting the application for Visa has given option to Appeal to the Administrative Regional Tribunal(T.A.R.) of Lazio within 60 days from the notification of refusal. 

 

9]       Admittedly, the Opposite Party, who was bound to arrange Visa for the complainant and her son, did not take any step to file an Appeal before the Administrative Regional Tribunal (T.A.R.) against the order of refusal of Embassy of Italy.

 

10]      The complainant could not enjoy her trip to Europe only due to failure on the part of the Opposite Party to arrange for Visa for them.  The Opposite Party was obviously negligent in not preferring an Appeal against the refusal order of Visa and as such suffers from deficiency of service on its part. Therefore, the Opposite Party could not forfeit the amount of Rs.60,000/- which the complainant had paid to it as booking amount.    

 

11]      Keeping into consideration the facts & circumstances, as explained in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint is hereby allowed with directions to the Opposite Party to refund Rs.60,000/- to the complainant along with compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 30 days. 

         If the order is not complied within the above stipulated period, the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay an additional cost of Rs.5000/-.

         The copy of this order be forwarded to the parties and file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25^th July, 2017                         Sd/-

                         

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

                                                          Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER