STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | | 102 of 2018 |
Date of Institution | | 02.05.2018 |
Date of Decision | | 04.05.2018 |
Madhu Kamal Sehgal S/o Sh. V.M. Sehgal, Flat No. 516, Block-D, GH-2, Sector 5, MDC, Panchkula ……Appellant
V e r s u s
International Travel House Limited through its Managing Director, an ISO 9001 Travel Company, SCO NO. 48-49, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.
...Respondent
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against
order dated 14.03.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. Chandigarh in C.C.No.No.352/2017..
Argued by: Ms. Amanjeet Kaur, Advocate, proxy for
Sh.Ranjan Lakhanpal, advocate for the appellant.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellant/complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 14.03.2018, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(I), U.T. Chandigarh (for short the Forum only), vide which his complaint was partly allowed by granting him the following relief ;
- to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony & harassment suffered by the Complainant;
ii. to also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.
The amount awarded was ordered to be paid within a period fixed, failing which, it was to entail penal interest.
2. The appellant/complainant is a Canadian citizen. It is his case that on 13.5.2016, he purchased tickets through OP for travel to Europe (Schengen Countries). He, being Canadian citizen, was not required to get visa to enter Europe. Tickets were booked from New Delhi to Finland and then to Holland for the period from 8.6.206 to 15.9.2016. When he reached airport at Delhi, he was told by FINNAIR staff that the ticket was valid for more than 90 days and as per Visa Rules, he can stay in Schengen Countries for not more than 90 days. He was advised to travel to England for about 10-12 days in the meantime and then he will be permitted to return to India from Holland. He was again stopped at Finland International Airport for asking above question again. He was advised to stay in England for few days and then come back to India to overcome the condition that he cannot stay in Schengen Countries for more 90 days. It is case of the complainant that despite having knowledge about the condition, wrong tickets were issued by the respondent for more than 90 days. He should have been advised to get ticket for 90 days to meet the condition to visit Schengen countries. It was his further case that on his asking, return journey was preponed from 15.9.2016 to 1.9.2016, for which, OP charged Rs.7200/-. Thereafter, when on demand, the said amount was not returned and nothing was paid to compensate him for suffering physical and mental harassment, he sent a legal notice on 8.10.2016. Even then nothing was done which forced him to file a consumer complaint on 25.4.2017 claiming compensation for mental and physical harassment to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs and also refund of amount wrongly charged from him.
3. Upon notice, OP filed reply admitting that the appellant being a Canadian Citizen, no visa was necessary for him to enter Schengen Countries. He, being literate person, must be aware of terms and conditions of stay of those countries. It was further said that the tickets were issued as per requirement of the complainant.
4. To the reply, rejoinder was filed by the complainant. On analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, the Forum observed as under ;
“ Admittedly, the Opposite Party had issued a ticket to the Complainant whose duration was beyond three months and because of which the Complainant suffered immensely for no fault of his. It is important to note that the Opposite Party has business of ticketing, tour & travels and it was well within its knowledge that a person cannot stay in Europe for more than three months. However, still the Opposite Party chose to issue ticket to the Complainant whose duration was more than three months, thus, subjecting him to undue harassment, hardship and delay. Although the Complainant had paid full charges for the ticket, yet he was told to pay Rs.7200/- for the same ticket to change the date of travel to 01.09.2016. These acts of the Opposite Parties, to our mind certainly tantamounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, for which the Complainant is required to be suitably compensated, in order to meet the ends of justice.”
5. The Forum held that it was duty of the OP to disclose before issuing tickets to the complainant that he could not stay for more than 90 days in Schengen Countries. Despite knowing the above fact, the OP issued tickets valid for more than 90 days and then charged Rs.7200/- to prepone the return journey. Terming it as unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, compensation and litigation expenses were awarded to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. Contention of Counsel for the appellant that the amount awarded is on the lower side does not appear to be correct. In the complaint, a prayer was made for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs, for which, no proof of sufferance to that extent, has been placed on record. From reading of contents of the complaint, it appears that the complainant might have been asked 2 or 3 questions by Airline staff. However, it is not his case that he was debarred from entering Schengen Countries and was not allowed to fly. The complainant being a literate person, a Canadian citizen, is supposed to know about the condition of period, for which he could stay in those countries. It is a specific case of the respondent that the tickets were issued as per requirement of the complainant as he wanted to stay in England during the said period. No case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.
6. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
7. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
