BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No : 1445 of 2009

Date of Institution :  17.11.2009

Date of  Decision   :  17.02.2010

Ranjodh Singh S/o Sh. Malkiat Singh, R/o H.No. 231, Shaheed Surjit Singh Nagar, Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar (Punjab).

 ……Complainant

V E R S U S

The Manager, Career Weavers Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Head Office, SCO No. 405-406, Sec.35, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Party

QUORUM :     SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

          SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI       MEMBER

PRESENT: Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for Complainant.

           OP ex-parte.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, allured by the advertisement published by the OP in the newspaper, the Complainant approached it to enquire about the procedure for applying for a Tourist Visa for Spain, upon which he was told to pay Rs.30,000/- and was also told to execute a Contract/Agreement, copy of which is at Annexure C-1. Accordingly, he completed all the necessary formalities, as desired by the OP and also deposited Rs.20,000/- on 9.2.2009, against receipt No.630, copy of which is at Annexure C-2. Thereafter, he was again directed to pay Rs.18,200/-, which he deposited vide Receipt No. 703, copy of which is at Ann.C-3. But to his utter surprise, the Complainant was told to collect the Passport from Delhi on his own, which he did in April, 2009, and after getting the passport, he found that he did not get the Tourist Visa and no reasons were cited for refusing him the tourist visa to Spain, against which he represented to the OP on 13.10.2009 (Annexure C-4), but to no avail. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.38,200/- paid to the OP alongwith interest @18% p.a. with effect from 9.2.2009. Besides this, the Complainant has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment & mental agony, due to deficiency on the part of the OP and Rs.7,000/- towards costs of litigation.

2]      Notice of the complaint sent to OP was returned with the remark “refused” and since refusal is good service, therefore, the OP was proceeded against ex-parte.

3]      Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

4]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the Complainant (OP being ex-parte). As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having paid a total sum of Rs.38,200/- to the OP for obtaining a tourist visa, which was required to be stamped on his passport and that subsequently, since the OP was not able to get him the visa, he asked for the refund, which was not given by the OP, have all been established. Apart from the affidavit of the Complainant in which he has stated the facts on oath, the Complainant has also enclosed three documents i.e. two money receipts, showing the payment of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.18,200/- respectively and the third, Contract of Engagement (Arrangement of Tourist Visa) signed by the parties.

ii] The present case has been well established by the Complainant by producing various documents, as stated above, but the Manager of OP has not presented himself either in person or through an authorized agent or through a counsel to defend the case. In such a case, we have no choice, but to believe the version of the Complainant, based on his affidavit, as well as documents produced by him. It is quite clear that even after receiving a payment of Rs.38,200/- from the Complainant, the OP has rendered no service to the Complainant, so much so, that not only the Complainant was refused tourist visa to Spain, for which he had availed the services of the OP on payment, but also that the OP told him to personally go to Delhi and collect the passport in April, 2009. Clearly this was the duty of the OP to make arrangements for procuring a tourist visa to Spain for the Complainant, as also to collect the passport from Delhi, after the Visa was stamped on the passport of the Complainant and handover the same to him. Nothing of this sort has been done by the OP, which is clearly deficiency of service, as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

iii] In the Contract of Engagement (Arrangement of Tourist Visa) [Annexure C-1], it is clearly mentioned under the heading “Payment Plan” that the OP shall be charging a retainer fee of Rs.20,000/- (non-refundable) to be paid at the time of signing the agreement. This amount has already been paid by the Complainant to the OP on 9.2.2009. Further, a professional fee of Rs.10,000/- was to be paid by the Complainant only after getting visa or visa approval. Against this, the Complainant has paid another sum of Rs.18,200/- to the OP; whereas, no payment beyond Rs.20,000/- was required to be made by the Complainant till such time the tourist visa to Spain was not arranged by the OP for him. Therefore, there is a clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of Contract of Engagement (Arrangement of Tourist Visa)  signed by the parties by the OP. There is clearly undue enrichment on the part of the OP at the cost of the Complainant without rendering any service, whatsoever by the OP. Therefore, not only there is gross deficiency of service but also indulgence in unfair trade practice on the part of the OP in not providing the required services for which it was duly paid by the Complainant, and also that the OP has over charged the Complainant.  

5]      Keeping in view the above stated facts and circumstances of the entire case, it is our considered view that there is a gross deficiency of service, as well as indulgence in unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The present complaint has a lot of merit, weight and substance and deserves acceptance. We, therefore, allow the complaint in favour of the Complainant and against the OP and pass the following order.

6]      The OP shall make the following payments to the Complainant:-

(i)    The OP shall refund the sum of Rs.38,200/- to the Complainant, as it did not render any service to the Complainant and still retained the amount paid by the Complainant by refusing to refund the same on demand by the Complainant.

(ii) The sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant on account of refusal of tourist visa to Spain.

(iii)     Rs. 5000/- towards cost of litigation.

7]      The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall pay the sum of  Rs.68,200/-, along with interest @18% per annum, from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 17.11.2009, till the date                   of realization, besides cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.

8]       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17.02.2010                                                                                                                                               Sd/-        

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                   Sd/-         

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER