Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/212/2021

Parveen Aneja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporate Ltd, (IRCTC) - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Khunger

24 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/212/2021
Date of Institution	:	31.3.2021
Date of Decision	:	24.1.2024

             

1.   Parveen Aneja son of late Sh. Ram Lal Aneja resident of House No.3556, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh 160036.

2.   Anita Aneja wife of Parveen Aneja, resident of House No.3556, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh 160036. 

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1.   Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporate Limited (IRCTC) having its head office at Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd., 9^th floor, Bank of Baroda Building 16, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001 through its Chairman/Managing Director. 

2. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporate Limited (IRCTC) having its regional office at 2^nd floor Block-4, Paryawas Bhawan, Arera Hill, Bhopal 462011 through its CEO.

3.   Visa Alliance & Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. having its head office at 40, Shreeji Plaza, 2^nd floor, Tata Road No.1 Behind Roxy Theatre, Opera House, Mumbai 400004 through its representative Mr. Anish K. Babbar.

… Opposite Parties

    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for complainants
	:	Sh. Bhuwan Luthra, Advocate for OPs No.1&2.
	:	OP No.3 exparte.

 

 

[2]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/213/2021
Date of Institution	:	31.3.2021
Date of Decision	:	24.1.2024

             

1. Vinod Kumar Aneja son of late Sh. Ram Pal Aneja, resident of No.8392/A, Sunny enclave, Sector 125, Mohali, 140301.

2. Mohit Aneja son of Vinod Kumar Aneja resident of House No.8549, Sunny enclave, Sector 125, Mohali, 140301.

…. Complainants

V E R S U S

1.   Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporate Limited (IRCTC) having its head office at Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. 9^th floor, Bank of Baroda Building 16, Parliament Street New Delhi 110001 through its Chairman/Managing Director.

2. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporate Limited (IRCTC) having its regional office at 2^nd floor Block-4, Paryawas Bhawan, Arera Hill, Bhopal 462011 through its CEO.

3.   Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporate Limited (IRCTC) having its Zonal office at 2^nd floor, New Administrative Building, Central Railway, CST, Mumbai 400001 through its CEO.

4.   Visa Alliance & Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. having its head office at 40, Shreeji Plaza, 2^nd floor, Tata Road No.1 Behind Roxy Theatre, Opera House, Mumbai 400004 through its representative Mr. Anish K. Babbar.

 

….Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for complainants
	:	Sh. Bhuwan Luthra, Advocate for OPs No.1 to 3.
	:	OP No.4 exparte.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

1.     By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2.     The facts, for convenience, have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2021 titled as Parveen Aneja & anr. vs. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporate Ltd. & Ors.
3.     Briefly stated the complainants allured with the online advertisements and high claims of the OPs booked a tour glimpses of Europe Ex Indore with the OPs and selected the tour package of Rs.1,94,990/- for each adult on double occupancy, Ex-Indore after going  through all the details provided by the OPs. However, OP No.2 informed the complainants that the flight No.9W 386 got cancelled and the complainants were asked to reach Mumbai of their own. On 4.4.2019 the OP No.2  asked the complainants to deposit half of the payment towards the package cost of the trip in order to book the tour. Accordingly on 5.4.2019 the complainants made payment of Rs.1,94,990/-. Thereafter the complainant time and again requested the OPs to apply for visa at the earliest because the visa authorities suggests to schedule an appointment at least 2-3 weeks before scheduled departure and also provided all the required documents     and also visited France Visa application centre as per instructions of the  OPs and even the complainants booked their flight tickets from Delhi to Mumbai and also planned their travel from Chandigarh  to Delhi by road as they were assured by the OPs that their visa for Europe Trip will be approved soon because all necessary documentation has been done by the OPs. However, surprising on 20.5.2019, the complainants were informed vide  communication Annexure C-9 by the Ops that their visa has been refused/cancelled by the French Embassy on  ground that justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable and further your intention to leave the territory of the member states before the expiry of the visa could not be ascertained. It is alleged that   it was the sole responsibility of the OP to provide required documents regarding the details about the purpose of the trip details of the stay and return tickets so that intention of visiting the Europe country  only for the purpose of tourism and returning before the expiry of the visa could be ascertained by the French embassy. However, due to delay on the part of the Ops in applying the visa, the embassy could not get sufficient time to verify the details which resulted into rejection of visa. Due to refusal of visa the flights booked by the complainants were also cancelled which caused monetary loss to the complainants to the tune of Rs.6300/-. The complainant requested the OPs for refund of the amount but they only refunded an amount of Rs.93,058/-  and din not refund the rest of the amount despite repeated requests. Alleging the aforesaid act of the OPs deficiency in service, the instant complaint has been filed.
4. In their written reply the Ops No.1&2 while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that IRCTC was proficient in it role of doing everything needed to be done. In fact Sh. Anish Babbar was personally coordinating with all the passengers whose appointment was taken at
   French Embassy, New Delhi  for visa  documentation process. There is no deficiency or delay on the part of IRCTC. Moreover, Visa has not been rejected on the ground of delay in applying for visa. When 44 passengers out of 48 can get visa then how there can be deficiency on the part of IRCTC. It is admitted that documents were received in time and IRCTC alongwith visa alliance submitted the documents timely to the embassy. It is averred that granting  or denial of visa is entirely the prerogative of concerned embassy. Thus there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OPs. It is averred that the cost of the tour was Rs.1,94,990/-x2=389,980/- and the  complainants only paid Rs.1,94,990/-. The IRTC booked tickets and got insurance and applied for visa and the expenses of the said services comes to Rs.1,01,932/-.  Denying all other allegations made in the complaint it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
5. OP No.3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 2.7.2021.
6. Contesting   Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the entire record. 
8. The main grievance  of the complainants is that due to delay on the part of the OPs in applying the visa, their visa was rejected by the embassy concerned and they suffered monetary loss.
9. A perusal of record reveals that the amount was paid by complainant on 5/4/2019 whereas the OPs started process for grant of visa only on 3^rd  May 2019.  Further a perusal of Annexure C-9 reveals that the VISA of the complainants was rejected on the following grounds:-

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

9. Your intentions to leave the territory of the member states before the expiry of the visa could not be ascertained.'”

 

10. From the above it is crystal clear that the OPs have not attached Air tickets and hotel accommodation etc. with the information sent to the embassy, which could have satisfied the above two grounds on which the visa was rejected.  
11. Further on perusal of conversation between the complainants and the OPs it is clear that in case of cancellation of VISA only 10% of the cost  was to be deducted  towards cancellation of trip as is evident from Annexure C-7 at page 57 of the paper book.
12. In view of the above discussion the Ops were required to refund 90% of the amount paid by complainants after deducting 10% towards cancellation charges. Thus by not refunding 90% of the paid amount, the Ops are deficient in rendering service and indulged in unfair trade practice.   
13.     In view of the above discussion, both the consumer complaints deserve to succeed and the same are accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

RELIEF IN CC/212/2021

1. to refund to the complainants 90% of the total paid amount minus the amount if any already paid by the OPs to the complainants, alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till onwards.
2. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainants as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

RELIEF IN CC/2013/2021

4. to refund to the complainants 90% of the total paid amount minus the amount if any already paid by the OPs to the complainant, alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till onwards.
5. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainants as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
6. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) in each case above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) in each case above.
15. A copy of this order be also placed in aforementioned connected complaint.

4.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

sd/-  [Pawanjit Singh]

President

24.1.

24.1.2024                                                                                                     sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana]

Member