IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 17thday of February, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 31/2019 (filed on 27-02-2019)
Petitioner : Akhil Michael,
S/o. Michael Antony,
Varavungal,
Vadakode P.O.
Thrikkakara North,
Ernakulam – 682 021.
(Adv. Surya P. Shaji and Adarsh M.T.)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : Gran Holidays,
1st Floor, Nakshatrhra Building,
Kurisummoodu,
Changanacherry – 686 104.
(Rep. by its Manager)
(Adv. Josy K. Joseph)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Short facts of the complaint are as follows:
The opposite party advertised that they are conducting 11 days pilgrim tours to Egypt, Israel, and Jordan from 5th November to 15th November 2018. By Attracting on the advertisement, the complainant expressed his wishes to have pilgrim program for 11 days. At that time the opposite party informed that totalamount for the pilgrimage was Rs. 86,000/- and informed that the opposite party will provide food, accommodation and travel expenses. As demanded by the opposite party complainant handed over Rs. 30,000/- as advance and other documents to one. Tijo Joseph who introduced himself as the Manager of the opposite party on6-10-2018. After 2 weeks , the opposite party informed that all procedures for pilgrimage is complete and demanded to deposit balance amount of Rs. 56,000/- . Accordingly the complainant handed over Rs. 56,000/- on 23-10-2018 to said Tijo Joseph.
As per the schedule of the opposite party, the first day that is 5-11-2018 the complainant and other pilgrims were to start their journey from Cochin to Cairo and on the next day they visit pyramids and Egypt Museum etc. On the third day,pilgrims were proposed to proceed to Sinal and likewise all the schedule program of pilgrimage has been explained in the advertisement published by the opposite party. Accordingly, as per the package thecomplainant and others started from the Nedumbassery airport on 5-11-2018 towards Cairo and reached their. On the next day, the complainant and others were taken to visit Pyramids. On 6-11-2018 at night, the opposite party informed that 8 members including the complainant out of 49 pilgrims had got disqualified to continue the pilgrimage due the cancellation of their visa to Israel. The opposite party left the complainant and other 7 members there itself and continued thejourney with rest of the members. It is alleged in the complaint that the opposite party knew about the situation before commencing the tour and withheld the information that the the visa of the 8 members were not cleared to travel Israel and Jordan. After informing about the non –stamping of visa opposite party abandoned the eight pilgrims including the complainant in hotel withoutarranging food or proper accommodation. That only after the hotel authorities interfered in the issue the opposite party was constrained to arrange one person to care of the complainant and others. The complainant managed to arrange an air ticket back to Cochin and reached on 9-11-2018. The opposite party had made representation and promised that the entire pilgrim included the expenses of food, accommodation and ravel , ensured all procedural formalities of getting the visa in the countries of Egypt, Israel, Jordan etc would be arranged at their risk and cost. However,violating all the assurance offered by the opposite party had committed deficiency in service and thereby caused much metal agony, loss, and hardship to the complainant. Thus this complaint s filed for praying an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 86,000/- and compensation of Rs. 10, 00,000/-.
Upon notice opposite party appeared before the commission and filed version contending as follows:
Upon notice opposite party appeared before the commission and filed version contending as follows:
It is admitted that the opposite party has published an advertisement in newspaper that they were conducting a pilgrimage tour package from 5-11-2018 to 15-11-2018. The complainant paid rs. 86,000/- which is the total expense for the pilgrimage including the food, accommodation, and travel expenses. The procedural expenses for obtaining visa were alsooffered at their cost. On 5-11-2018, pilgrims started from Nedumbassery Airport, Cochin to Cairo as per the schedule. The pilgrims were given adequate accommodation in Cairo and on 6-11-2018; the pilgrims were taken to visit pyramids. As per schedule, the visit to Sinai was proposed to be on the next day. It is true that the complainant could not proceed to Israel and Jordan since the application for visa of 9 members rejected by the IsraelImmigration authorities. As soon as the opposite party received the intimation of rejection, it was intimated to all 8 members including the complainant.
It is stated in the version that the members of the group including the complainant and the opposite party reported on Ndembassery airport early morning at 2.00 am on 5-11-208. Then it was on 4-11-2018 night at Israel. The intimation from the Israel Immigration authorities, regarding the rejection of visa wasreleased only on 5-11-2018. Hence the allegation that the opposite party withheld the information that the visas of the 8 members were not cleared to the Israel and Jordan is false. The visas to Israel are issued after personal interview of each passenger at the border by the Israel immigration authorities.
It is further averred in the version that asadvertised andassured by the opposite party, they have assisted all passengers in the process of securing and obtaining the necessary travel documents. The opposite party had filed the application for theIsraelvisa for all passengers well in advance. On getting an application for visa, the Israel authorities themselves collects the details and necessary information of each passenger. There are several occasions where the pilgrims skip from their group and abscond during pilgrimage and stay unlawfully in Israel.Therefore, the Israel immigration authorities are vigilant to prevent such events and the visas of those whom they suspect will be rejected without any reason. On the background of the complainant, the visa issuing authorities might have got reliable information to suspect that the complainant may abscond in their country. It is submitted in the version that in the particular group also 3 members, whose application for visa wasapproved, absconded when the group was in Israel. Opposite party, also suspect that the intention of the persons whose application for visa was rejected were actually planned to abscond in Israel. The above facts regarding the chances of rejection of the visaapplication and other matters were intimated to all the aspirants during registration itself and orientation classes. One Nanju Joseph who was not amenable alone withdrew from the group and other 49 persons including the complainant also proceed with pilgrimage after duly understanding that their visa application was pending and will be issued only on their personal interview at Israel border.
On rejection of visa opposite party arranged the food and accommodation till 9-11-2018 for the 8 persons including the complainant. Further at the cost of opposite party flight tickets were arranged to them. Till their return journey, all days they were taken care, accompanied by one person deputed by the opposite party till Cairo airport. Apart from these 200 US Dollars was also entrusted with theme for sundry expenses if any. The opposite party did not ever acknowledge the risk of getting visa for pilgrims since it being outside the ambit oftheir service and within the jurisdiction of a foreign country. The opposite party has not collected any amount from the complainant after offering anyassurance apartfrom what mentioned in the advertisement brochure. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Evidence of this consists of the proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and exhibit A1 to A5 from the side of the complainant. Tijo Joseph who is the manger of the opposite party examined as Dw1 and Exhibits B1 to B5 were marked from the side of the opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points?
- Whether the complainant had succeed to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party?
- If so what are the reliefs?
For the sake ofconvenience we would like to consider the point number 1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant pilgrimage tour package from 5-11-2018 to 15-11-2018. . The total expense for the tour is Rs. 86,000/-. The complainant vide exhibit A2 and A3 receipts paid rs. 86,000/- which is the total expense for the pilgrimage including the food, accommodation, and travel expenses. It is also admitted by the both parties that as per the package the complainant and others started from the Nedumbassery airport on 5-11-2018 towards Cairo and reached their. On the next day, the complainant and others were taken to visit Pyramids. There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant could not proceed to Israel and Jordan since the application for visa of 8 members rejected by the Israel Immigration authorities.
According to the complainant the opposite party knew about the situation before commencing the tour and withheld the information that the visas of the 8 members were not cleared to travel Israel and Jordan.
On the other hand the opposite parties contended thatthe intimation from the Israel Immigration authorities, regarding the rejection of visa was released only on 5-11-2018. ExhibitA5 is the entry permit to the Israel issued by the Border control Department of Israel dated 5-11-2018. On perusal of Exhibit A5 we can see that visa of 8 members in the group including the complainant were rejected. In version and proof affidavit it is stated by the Dw1 that the complainant also proceed with pilgrimage after duly understanding that their visa application was pending and will be issued only on their personal interview at Israel border. However, the opposite party did not disclose the date on which the complainant and other members of the group appeared for personal interview before the authorities at Israel border. Though the opposite party content that they had filed the application for the Israel visa for all passengers well in advance, they did not disclose the date on which such application is submitted by them for the issuance of the visa.
The brochure which was published by the opposite party is produced and marked as exhibitA1. In exhibit it is stated that the opposite party is acting as an agent only. It is further stated in Exhibit A1 that opposite party is not liablefor the rejection any visas for any reasons. On a close scrutiny we cannot see any mention about the fact that the visa to Israel willbe sanctioned only after a personal interview at the border of Israel nowhere in Exhibit A1 as contended by the opposite party in the version. Thus we can see that the opposite party did not disclose to complainant the material fact that the visa to the Israel will be issued only after a person interview by the authorities at the border of Israel. Though the opposite party produced exhibit B5 series C D and photographs to prove that the orientation classes were given by them to the aspirant, however the details of suchclasses were not disclosed before this commission. No evidence before us to prove that thedetails regarding the process of visa to Israel were disclosed to complainant. Astonishingly theopposite party had stated in the version that they have a doubt about the intention of the complainant alleging that he had planned to abscond in Israel. On the basis of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the non disclosure of the material fact that the visa to the Israel will be issued only at the border of Israel to the complainant amounts to imperfection and inadequacy in service by the opposite party.
According to the complainant after the refusal of visa he had stayed at the hotel Cairo without the help of the opposite party. It is further alleged that only when the hotel authorities interfered in the matter than only the opposite party arranged a person to assist him. It is stated in the proof affidavit that the complainant himself managed to arrange a return ticket to Cochin. Exhibit B3 proves that the opposite party had arranged a person to assist the complainant and others till their departure from Cairo. Exhibit B4 is the air tickets which were taken in the name of the complainant for his departure from Cairo to Cochin.
As discussed earlier the opposite parties has committed deficiency in service by not providing the properly guiding the complainant as the opposite party had promised. It is contended by the opposite parties that the amount cannot be refunded as the same has already been utilized towards flight, hotel and tour booking expenses. We are of the opinion that booking of air tickets without assuring that the issuance of a valid visa by the authorities concerned, before the original schedule of departure amounted to shortcoming in service.
Admittedly the complainant had partially availed the service of the opposite party by visiting the tourist places of Egypt. He had only deprived from visiting remaining holy places in the tour package due to the deficient service of the opposite party. No doubt the complainant had suffered much loss and sufferings by the act of deficiency by the opposite parties for which opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate.
Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant will meet the ends of justice.
Thus we allow the complaint in part and pass the following order
- We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and loss sustained by him due to the deficiency in service by the opposite party.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the award amount will carry 9% interest from the date of this order.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 17th day of February, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of opposite party
Dw1 –Tijo Joseph
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 - Copy of advertisement of opposite party
A2 - Cash receipt of Rs.30,000/- dtd.06-10-2018 issued by opposite party
A3 – Cash receipt of Rs.56,000/- dtd.23-10-2018
A4 – Travel summary of petitioner by opposite party
A5 – Copy of entry permit of Israel Govt. dtd.05-11-18
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 –Copy of complaint by opposite party to Sub Inspector, Thanamani P.S.
B2 – Travel Summary of petitioner
B3 – Service voucher No.1037 issued by Sagittarius Travel
B4 – Electronic Ticket passenger itinerary receipt
B5 – CD (subject to proof)
B5 series – photographs (3 nos.)
By Order
Assistant Registrar
