DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  4^th day of November, 2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Smt.Vidya A., Member             

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                 Date of Filing: 20/06/2018    

     CC/81/2018

Selvarajan,

S/o.Ananthakrishnan,

27/718, Adithyapuram,

Pallipuarm, Palakkad – 678 001                                -           Complainant

(By Adv.G.Jayachandran & Adv.P.Pradeep)

                                                                                    Vs

1. The Director,

       Singapore Consulate of India,

       No.17A, North Bhag Road,

       T Nagar, Chennai – 600 017

            (Since then deleted from party array on 10/3/22)

2. Jamal Muhammed P.V.

       Branch in charge,

       Al-Hind Travels, Prince Plaza,

       Shop No.15, Basement 1, Pantheon Road,

       Egmore, Chennai – 600 008

3.  Aneesh Kumar M.,

              Proprietor,

              Alfa Holidays & Travels,

              Manjakulam Road,

              Mission School, Junction,

              Palakkad – 678 014.             

4. Javid Sayed,

       Manager,

       Alhind Tours & Travels,

      1597/F Trichy Road, Near LIC Building,

       Opp. St.Francis School,

       Gopalapuram, Coimbatore – 641 018.                      -                       Opposite parties

             (Supplementary 4^th OP)        

(O.P.1 removed from party array,

             O.P.2 by Adv.S.Sidharthan,

              O.P.3 & 4 set Ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. This complaint was initially filed impleading the Singapore Consulate in India as the 1^st opposite party. Subsequently by an order dated 10.03.2022, said Sovereign was removed from party array. Resultantly, the remaining opposite parties ascended in the party array. But the complainant did not amend the complaint or reliefs so as to facilitate easy identification of parties post removal of opposite party 1. Correction was carried out in the cause title alone.

Therefore parties are identified herein in their order as was arrayed by the complainant before removal of the Sovereign. O.P.1 in the memorandum of complaint is referred to as the “Embassy”.

2. Pleadings in brief are that the complainant and his wife applied for Singapore and Malaysia tour package. Opposite parties 2 and 3 are the facilitators of the tour programme. Opposite party 2 carries out the procedural formalities for and on behalf of the 3^rd opposite party. Eventhough all documents were produced well beforehand, complainant’s and his wife’s papers were not processed and Visa was not handed over before the date of travel. All others got visa before the date of travel. Hence travel of the complainant and his wife had to be cancelled. The complainant is aggrieved by the denial of Visa by the Embassy and has filed this complaint seeking return of the amounts already expended by the complainant for travel and for compensation.
3. Only opposite party 2 filed version. The 2^nd opposite party denied having any connection with the 3^rd   opposite parties or having to do anything at all to do with the visa processing of the complainant or for the other opposite parties. Their pleadings are to the effect that they are totally in the dark as to the pleadings in the memorandum of complaint.
4. Reading of the pleadings give rise to the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 2 and  4?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party 3?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
4. Reliefs, if any grantable.

5.         Evidence comprised of proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts. A1 to A6. The opposite parties had adduced no evidence.

            Marking of all exhibits were objected to by the opposite party 2 on the ground they were photocopies. Since this  Commission is not bound by Indian Evidence Act and in the absence of any allegation that the said documents are forged or fabricated, the objections are overlooked and documents are taken in evidence.

            Issue No. 1

6.         Complaint pleadings state that in order to facilitate the travel, the 2^nd opposite party carried out the Visa processing works for and on behalf of the complainant and his wife. Out of 11 applicants, 9 persons got their visa by 27/08/2017. Complainant’s wife’s visa arrived by 03/09/2017. Complainant’s Visa did not arrive. Therefore complainant and his family had to cancel their travel. 

7.         Proof affidavit reiterates complaint pleadings. Exhibits A1 to A3 are the  E-visas issued to the complainant and his family. Ext. A3 is seen issued on 05/09/2017. Exhibit A4 is the booking for stay in the hotel. Ext. A5 is the itinerary. Ext. A6 is the flight ticket from Kochi  to Singapore. Date of travel is 04/09/2017. In all the said documents, name of the agent is that of the 3^rd opposite party, Alfa Holidays & Travels.

                        Thus we can see that Visa of the wife of complainant was issued only on 05/09/2017, a day after the start of tour.

            Issue no. 2

8.         The opposite party 2 has vehemently denied any liability or association with the entire transactions.  A perusal of the entire documents would show that the name of opposite party 3 is shown as the agent. There is no whisper whatsoever regarding any nexus between the 2^nd and 4^th opposite party to the 3^rd opposite party. Not even a prima facie case can be formed as against them. Hence we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any liability or culpability on the party of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. Therefore the complainant as against the 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties are dismissed.

.           Issue No. 3

9.         Proceedings of 20/07/2018 shows that the  3^rd opposite party was given intimation of the proceedings before this Commission. But 3^rd opposite party did not appear before this Commission and was set-parte.

10.       As already stated above, complainant has proved a prima facie case. And the 3^rd opposite party has failed to poke holes in the complainant’s case, even after receipt of notice.

11.       Therefore we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party 3. They are bound by law to make good the losses suffered by the complainant and his family.  

            Issue Nos.  4

12.       In view of the discussion above we hold that the complainant is entitled to the following reliefs.

1.         The opposite party 3 is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,72,902/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% interest from 04/09/2017 till the  date of  repayment.

2.         An amount of Rs. 25,000/- is directed to be paid as compensation by the opposite party 3 to the complainant.

3.         An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is directed to be paid as cost of the proceedings by the opposite party 3 to the complainant.

Issue Nos.  5

13.       In the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be seen that the complainant had been callously negligent while listing parties in the array of opposite parties. Even the basic tenet of law that a Sovereign State cannot be impleaded in the party array was overlooked by the opposite parties. Opposite parties 2 and 4 were included in the party array alleging that they were acting in tandem with the 3^rd opposite party. But no evidence, at least to cast a suspicion, was adduced as against them, even after cogent denials from them.  We are of the opinion that such a conduct is an abuse of the process of law, for which the opposite party 2 is to be compensated.

14.       We order the complainant to pay Rs. 7,000/- to the opposite party as cost of the proceedings.

The parties shall comply with the respective parts of their directions in this order  within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the respective recipient of the benefits will be entitled to Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

                        Pronounced in open court on this the 04^th  day of November, 2022.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

       Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                       Member        

                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1  -   Copy of e visa bearing   No.AB1566614

Ext.A2  -  Copy of e visa bearing    No.AB1566765

Ext.A3  –    Copy of e visa bearing No.AB1597522

Ext.A4  –   Copy of service voucher bearing invoice no.ACDM8596

Ext.A5  –   Copy of itinerary  bearing reference no.209864/AA/INALPHA

Ext.A6  –   Copy of  air flight ticket bearing booking reference no. G2FC6V

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Exhibit:   Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.