JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.8.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the Complainants (now appellants) in October, 2009, were issued confirmed tickets by OP-3 for Delhi-Dubai-Bahrain-Johannesburg and back. The visa was obtained by them for South Africa and Bahrain. The complainants were asked to approach OP-2 to get visa for Dubai. On 16.11.2009, after obtaining visa for Bahrain and South Africa, they applied to OP-2 for visa, for Dubai. OP No.2 assured that the visa would automatically be attached with the PNR, before the commencement of the journey, from South Africa to Dubai. On 18.11.2009, the complainants were asked by OP-2 for photocopies of their passports, as it admitted to have attached the copies of passport provided earlier, with some other case file. It was again confirmed by OP-2 that the visa would be endorsed in due course, and prior to the journey, which was to be undertaken from South Africa, on 2-3-2010. 3. On 1.03.2010, it was informed by OP-1 that the visa for Dubai was not endorsed on their PNR, and they could not give Dubai visa, and no reservation was available directly to Delhi, as new reservation was required. The complainants tried their level best for settlement of their grievance, but all in vain. Left with no option, they took the first available flight from M.Thata to Johannesburg and spent Rs.21,000/- in order to arrange necessary formalities. The luggage was brought in taxi from M.Thata to Johannesburg. On 2.03.2010, on persistent follow-up with OP-2, it was assured that the visa had already been granted, and, as such, they were allowed to board the flight to Dubai. When they reached Dubai, they were not allowed to go out of the Airport by the immigration authorities, on the ground, that the said visa was not valid. The immigration authorities refused all the facilities to the complainants. Even the complainants were not allowed to contact their relatives, who were waiting outside. Despite several requests, the complainants were forced to board the immediate flight to India, and were disallowed from staying in Dubai. It was further stated that the complainants received the acknowledgment on 03.03.2010, which was supposed to be provided, to the immigration section, at Dubai or attached to PNR No. before that date. It was further stated that, as such, the OPs were deficient in rendering service, to the complainant, as also they indulged into unfair trade practice. 4. The District Forum did not admit the complaint. After affording an opportunity to the Counsel for the complainants, and on going through the record, the complaint was dismissed at the preliminary stage. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Complainants/ Appellants. 6. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, the visa was granted to the appellants for visiting Dubai, and it was to be endorsed within 58 days from the scheduled arrival at Dubai, otherwise, the same was to lapse. It was further submitted by him that the appellants got booked tickets from respondent No.3, on 10.10.2009, after paying the entire consideration. It was further submitted by him that it was the sole responsibility of OP NO.2 to get visa for Dubai for them, as they applied for the said visa to it (OP NO.2). He further submitted that OP NO.2 assured the complainants/appellants that the needful would be done as the visa would automatically be attached with the PNR, much before the commencement of the journey, from South Africa to Dubai. He further submitted that the District Forum failed to take cognizance of the fact that, as per the terms and conditions, stipulated by Respondent NO.2, (DVPC/VFS) happened to be Dubai Visa Processing Centre, a facility of VFS Global Services Pvt. Ltd., for Emirates and the Government of Dubai offers the passengers the convenience of applying for Dubai Visa in India. He further submitted that since the appellants were only seeking visa confirmation, as they were genuinely worried, on account of not getting the same, despite having a valid visa, from the respondents, before leaving India, despite the fact that the respondents were corresponding through emails and informed the appellants of the needful to be done, before scheduled arrival at Dubai. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the physical appearance of the appellants was required in the embassy, for the purpose of getting visa for Dubai. He further submitted that from Annexure C-2, issued by Respondent NO.2, it is evident that the passengers desiring to visit Dubai and travelling on emirates only, could avail service of DVPC/VFS and thus, under these circumstances, it was the duty of Respondent No.2, to ensure the grant of visa endorsement. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that Respondent NO.2, was nobody to grant visa to the complainants. He further submitted that the District Forum was also wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that there was no deficiency, in rendering service on the part of the respondents and then did not indulge into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order passed by the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/OPs submitted that it was the sole prerogative/discretion of the Dubai Immigration Authorities either to grant, or refuse visa, without assigning any reason, whatsoever. He further submitted that Respondents No.1 & 2 had no role to play, in the matter, nor they could influence the decision of the Dubai Government. He further submitted that the mere fact that the tickets were got booked through Respondent NO.2, did not mean that it had been delegated the Sovereign Functions by Dubai Government to grant visa. He further submitted that the District Forum was right, in dismissing the complaint, on the ground, that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. There is no dispute, with regard to the factum, that the complainants had applied for Dubai visa in the month of November,2009, when they were at Delhi. Their visa was not confirmed till the date, when they boarded the flight for South Africa/Johannesburg. It was their duty, to ensure confirmation of their visa, before commencement of the journey, from India. Vide email C-6(a) sent by the complainants from M.Tattha, 1400Kms from Johannesburg, to OP NO.2, they requested for the status of visa for Dubai and also for confirmation thereof, which they had applied in November,2009, when they were in Delhi. There was no Emirates office at M.Tattha, wherefrom, the complainants were seeking confirmation. C-2 is a copy of the guidelines for Dubai visa. It is clearly mentioned therein that the processing of visa application may be availed from Emirates Airlines- OP NO.1, and VFS Global Services Pvt. Ltd.- OP No.2. Annexure C-3 is a copy of the letter dated 16.11.2009 sent by OP NO.2, to the complainants, through which they acknowledged visa fees of Rs.6300/-. According to C-3, the application was to be forwarded to the Immigration Authorities, at Dubai, for evaluation. OP NO.1 was required to be contacted to check PNR, in order to ascertain the status of the visa. The function of the OPs was only to the extent of processing the visa application of the complainants, for which they obtained fees. It was not within the powers of the OPs, either to grant, or refuse visa, to the complainants. It was not the case of the complainants, that after obtaining fees, the OPs did not process their application, for the grant of visa, nor did they forward the same to the authorities concerned. It is evident from C-3, a letter from Dubai Visa Application Centre that the decision to grant or refuse visa is at the sole discretion of Dubai Immigration, which is not required to assign any reason, whatsoever. It is further evident from this document that Emirates airline and VFS had no role or influence in the matter. It is also made clear in this document that no refund of fees, in case of refusal of visa, shall be made. It was also intimated vide this letter that the applicants who were refused the visa, could reapply after fulfilling the eligibility conditions, laid down by the Government of Dubai, and will have to pay the prevailing fee with each application. C-4 is a gmail from VFS Global -OP NO.2 and a note is appended in this document that the decision to grant, or refuse a visa, is the sole prerogative of the Government of Dubai/DNRD. It was also indicated that the Dubai Visa Processing Centre does not, in any way, influence the same. C-4(a) is another gmail from VFS Global to complainant NO.1, wherein the same note was recorded. Similar note was appended on Annexure C-7. It was sent by Anil Rawat of Dubai Visa Application Centre(Emirates) to Complainant NO.1. In C-10, it was also repeated that the decision to grant, or refuse visa, is the sole prerogative of the Government of Dubai/DNRD and Dubai Visa Processing Centre did not, in any way, influence the same. It is evident from C-12, the email, which was sent on behalf of Emirates India, that, as per records, the visa had been approved for outbound travel in Dubai. However, currently there was no visa details updated in the reservation. In C-13, an email from Dubai Visa Application Centre(Emirates) to complainant NO.1, it was again repeated that the decision to grant, or refuse visa, is the sole prerogative of Dubai Government and the OPs shall have no influence, whatsoever, in the matter of decision, in that regard. 10. From all these documents, which were produced by the complainants alongwith the complaint, it was clearly established that it was the sole discretion/prerogative of Dubai Government, either to grant visa, or to refuse the same, without assigning any reason. Respondents/OPs had no role to play, in the decision of Dubai Government, regarding the grant or refusal of visa. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the respondents were, in any way, deficient in rendering service, to the complainants, or they indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. The order of the District Forum, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting interference of this Commission. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/-. 12. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
