O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainants against the Ops are, that Op No.1 is a government authorized agency. That Op No.2 is a government agency. That they intended to visit Mecca for Haj Pilgrimage and that Op No.1 charges certain fee to the Pilgrimage aspirants and only after that payment that Op No.1 do other formalities for arranging Visa etc., That they applied for three seats to go to pilgrimage from general quota and they each paid Rs.10,700/- to Op No.1 on 28/05/2008. That certain quota for pilgrimage will be fixed by Saudi Arabia country where the pilgrimage centre is situated to avoid rush. That out of the quota provided to India, India will further allot quota to each State depending upon the Muslim percentage population. Then the Ops out of the quota allotted to Karnataka State, when receive more number of applications than number of seats available draw the lottery to select aspirants and in that draw their names were not selected to pilgrimage tour for the year 2008 by the Ops. Then they approached for selection in the additional quota of the Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, where they were allotted and communication was sent to Op No.2. A list was also announced. Then on the direction of Op No.2, they deposited Rs.98,010/- in the account of Op No.1. Thereafter, Op No.2 directed them to send applications to Op No.1. Then he sent the applications to Op No.1 by DTDC Courier. It was received on 27/02/2008. At the instance of Op No.2, they also got medical check up. Then when they approached the Ops about other formalities they were evasive and they did not get any response from them. Then he filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.14916/2008 seeking direction to Ops to arrange for their Visas. Then the Ops contesting Writ Petition submitted that time for Pilgrimage tour had expired and they can not arrange for Visas. Hence, Writ Petition was withdrawn. Therefore, the complainant attributing deficiency to the Ops in not arranging the Visas in time have prayed for a direction to them for refunding tour charges of Rs.98,010/- and other expenditure stated to have been incurred in all amounting to Rs.12,01,430/-.<br /> <br /> Ops have appeared through their advocate, Op No.1 has filed his version and affidavit evidence. Whereas Op No.2 has not at all filed any version and affidavit evidence. Op No.1 in his version contended that the complainants are not the consumers and the complaint is not maintainable. It is further contended that Op No.1 is constituted which is a statutory authority under the Huj Committee Act 2002 formed for providing free service to the Huj Pilgrims. Therefore, the matters do not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. That as per the quota of Pilgrims allotted to each State by Government of India for particular year based on Muslim population with the District Wise, selection of Huj Pilgrims will be done through computerized draw on lots when the applications are received more than the quota allotted. That Op No.1 is not a commercial organization and service is rendered by it on ‘no profit and no loss basis’. In the case on hand complainants when they were not selected in the draw of lots approached Huj Committee of India, Mumbai but they never turned up thereafter nor given any fresh application in this regard. Therefore, the allegations of deficiency against them are false. As per the pilgrims seats released. Ministry of External Affairs, out of their quota, Haj Committee of India did not receive any application from the complainants for completion of necessary procedure for obtaining visas from Saudi Embassy. The courier receipts relied on by the complainants do not confirm that Haj applications were forwarded to them and in that regard they had also replied to them denying to have given any instruction for medical check up to the complainants. In the absence of their applications to the Haj Committee of India at Bombay, medical check up could not have been taken up and have stated that they have not received fresh Haj applications and question of deficiency in their service do not arise and submitted for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into this complaint, the complainant and the Chief Executive Officer of Op No.1 have filed their affidavit evidence re-producing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainants along with the complaint have produced Xerox copies of applications stated to had been filed to Haj Committee of India, Bombay, copy of documents evidencing payment of Rs.10,700/- each by each of them to Op No.1 and a copy of the challans having paid Rs.98,010/- in the bank stated to be in favour of Op No.1, then a copy of the letter addressed to Executive Officer, Haj Committee of India, Bombay, reply of that executive officer to the complainant No.1, with a copy of order passed in Writ Petition. The Ops have not produced any documents. We have heard and perused the records.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have caused deficiency in their service?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainants are entitled to?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the negative<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> Answer on point No.1:<br /> <br /> As found from the contentions of the complainants, they have not denied the stand taken by the first Op that Ops are statutory committees constituted under Haj Committee Act 2002 with a sole object of providing free service to the Haj pilgrims in India, that they charge the pilgrims for processing of their smooth pilgrimage on ‘no profit and no loss basis’. It is further found from these materials on record, the committees are constituted for providing pilgrim’s assistance to the intended pilgrims to visit pilgrimage centre and they are not constituted with any commercial purpose and they are only meant for rendering free service in dischargel of their statutory function. Therefore having regard to the relationship between the complainants and the Ops and the nature of service that the complainants expecting from the Ops and the ops are expected to render there cannot be any doubt that Ops are statutory service rendering committees and not constituted with an intention of rendering service for a commercial intention. Thus the complainants who had approached the Ops for their assistance were required to pay statutory fee fixed and do not become consumers and therefore, the complaint on this ground alone is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> Coming to the allegations of the complainants concerned they have admitted that number of pilgrims seats are fixed to each country in the world, accordingly, India also gets its quota depending upon Muslim population. It is further found that the Government of India fixes quota for each State again on the basis of Muslim Population besides reserving certain quota at the disposal of Ministry of External Affairs. Complainants have conceded that in Karnataka when aspirants were more than the quota allotted, Ops drew in lots the names of the applicants, in that process, complainants were not selected. Therefore, the complainants have no grievance against the Opponents up to that stage and therefore, the opponents cannot be held to have caused any deficiency in their service in these complainants having not selected.<br /> <br /> The complainants claimed then they approached Ministry of External Affairs for providing them seats in the additional quota and stated that seats were allotted to them and they were communicated by Op No.2 and list was also announced and the complainants stated to have produced that list as per document No.3. But on seeing this document it is not a complete document itself therefore it cannot be said that it is a list of selection selecting these complainants for pilgrimage tour. However, Op No.1 has contended that the complainants did not file any application after they failed to get select through lottery to them and therefore their case were not processed for sending proposal to issue visa to Saudi Arabia Embassy. Op No.1 in Para 7 of his version and also in the affidavit evidence has made a categorical statement that they have not received any fresh Haj application from the complainants for rendering any service and therefore denied to had instructed the complainants to go for medical check up. In response to this, the complainants have not produced any documents to prove that they thereafter had filed any application for allotment of seats to any of the ops. Copy of the letter that the complainant No.1 produced dated 26/11/2008 is a letter, one addressed to the Executive Officer of Haj Committee of Mumbai in which he has stated that he is not getting any response from Karnataka State Haj Committee and requested him to do needful. Then the Chief Executive Officer of Haj Committee of India in his letter dated 26/11/2008 informed the first complainant stating though the Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India released seats for them in the additional quota but they have not received any applications in their office therefore further process was not started in their office and that Saudi Consulate has stopped all the work of stamping visa. Thus it is clear from this letter, that though seats were released from the Ministry of External Affairs, but the complainants did not give Haj applications and therefore their cases were not processed. This being a crucial issue, the complainants are required to prove that they had given Haj applications forms either to Haj Committee of India or to Ops to forward them. But no such evidence or proof led before us. As such when no such applications were filed then the question of Ops processing them or doing any needful would not arise and therefore, we find no truth in the allegations of deficiency in the service of the Ops. Hence, we answer point No.1 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 13th July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />