IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated, the 28^th day of June, 2024

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 437/2023 (Filed on 16.12.2023)

O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

On 24-06-2023, complainants visited the opposite parties, seeking to reserve a round-trip flight ticket for their son, Bob Joseph John, departing from Kochi to DFW (USA) on 25.09.2023. The complainants also expressed their intention to travel with their son to the USA on the same date. However, the complainants needed to renew their US visas within 48 months of expiration, specifically on or before 22.07.2023, to qualify for an interview waiver. Upon being informed of this requirement, the opposite parties assured the complainants that their agency would promptly and competently handle the visa renewal process before the 48-month deadline. Relying solely on the representations and inducements of the opposite parties, the complainants entrusted them with their old and new passports, along with other relevant documents, for the visa renewal process. The opposite parties received an amount of ₹ 47,000/- as service charges for the renewal of the visas. After receiving the payment, the opposite parties assured the complainants that they would arrange the visas without needing to be physically present at the US Consulate in Chennai, given the renewal was within 48 months of expiry. However, the opposite parties delayed submitting the renewal application to the US Consulate. Despite repeated demands from the complainants, the opposite parties delayed submitting the application to the US Consulate in Chennai.

After this, opposite parties informed complainants that Form DS- 160 was completed online, and an appointment was scheduled on 21.07.2023 at the US Consulate in Chennai. On 19.07.2023, the complainants received a confirmation mail from the U.S. Department of State for the submission of a non-immigrant visa application along with relevant documents on the scheduled appointment date, i.e., on 21.07.2023. Opposite parties further assured that they would submit all the documents for the renewal of the visas on 21.07.2023 at the U.S. Consulate in Chennai.

On 22.07.2023, opposite parties informed the complainants that their appointment at the U.S Consulate, Chennai, on 21.07.2023 was cancelled, citing the reason as "NO SHOW" due to their failure to appear before the U.S Consulate on the scheduled date and time with relevant documents and hence the appointment was automatically cancelled. The Complainants entrusted the visa application process to the Opposite Parties, with requisite payments made by 26.06.2023. Nevertheless, the Opposite Parties only completed Form DS-160 online on 19.07.2023, scheduling the appointment for 21.07.2023. This was a mere day before the final eligibility date of 22.07.2023 for interview waiver-based visa applications. It was the Opposite Parties' responsibility to initiate and conclude the application process in a timely manner in accordance with consulate-established terms and regulations to facilitate the complainant's visa renewal. The Opposite Parties failed to fulfill this obligation.

Despite the opposite party's inability to obtain the necessary visa via the interview waiver, complainants continued to rely on the opposite parties when they persuaded them to schedule a regular VISA interview. Owing to the lack of alternatives, complainants agreed to such an arrangement. Nevertheless, opposite parties have not yet furnished the appointment for complainants up to the present time, despite the complainant's frequent inquiries on the matter, attributing the delay to technical issues. Pursuant to the elapse of over four months since the complainants transferred a sum of ₹ 47,000/- to opposite parties for the express purpose of renewing their U.S. visas, no services in relation to said visa renewal has been performed.

As a result of this deficiency in services, the complainants sent a registered letter on October 31, 2023, and another email dated November 8, 2023, demanding reimbursement of the full amount of ₹ 47,000/- without interest within seven days of receipt. The complainants made numerous attempts to contact the opposite parties through telephone, email, and written correspondence to seek reimbursement. Additionally, the complainants issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on November 10, 2023. The complainants suffered significant losses due to the illegal acts of the opposite parties. The complainants have to spend a lot of money, time, and effort for the after-effects of the deficiency of service of the opposite parties.

Hence, this complaint is filed praying for a direction to the opposite parties to promptly deliver all requisite documentation belonging to the complainants, which they currently possess, for the complainants to duly appear before the US Consulate in Chennai and attend their rescheduled visa appointments and to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of ₹ 47,000/- with interest per annum. It is further prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of ₹ 3,00,000/-  towards compensation to the complainants.

Upon notice from this commission, opposite parties appeared before this commission and filed joint version contending as follows:

          Travisa Tours and Travels is an agency engaged in assisting visa processes in foreign countries. The first complainant came to the office to reserve the flight ticket, and the opposite parties did the same to his complete satisfaction. Though the US visas of the complainants expired more than four years ago, by virtue of the extension of the period on account of the COVID-19 epidemic, they could avail themselves of the benefit of renewal through the Drop Box facility. The first complainant visited the office of the opposite parties on 26.06.2023 and paid a total amount of ₹ 47,000/- for the renewal of the visa of the complainants, which included the visa fee of $ 185 for each of them. On 27.06.2023, the opposite parties paid the visa fees to the US Consulate through the AXIS Bank. The complainants knew the Drop Box facility for their visa renewal would expire on 22.07.2023. The Drop Box facility at the US Consulate was controlled by online appointments displayed on the consulate website. The earliest available date for document verification of the complainants for their visa renewal after paying the visa fee was 21.07.2023. The appointment confirmation received from the US Consulate was promptly intimated to the complainants.

The appointment dated 21.07.2023 was cancelled not due to the failure of the opposite parties to appear before the US Consulate on the scheduled date and time with relevant documents. The representative of the opposite party appeared before the Consulate promptly at the appointed time on 21.07.2023; the officials of the Consulate refused to accept the renewal application for the reason that they needed seven days to process the renewal, and the last date for renewal was on 22.07.2023, it was not possible for them either to process the application or to renew the visa. The complainants submitted the documents for renewal with the opposite parties at a highly belated stage. The opposite parties have no role in fixing the date of the interview. Had the complainants submitted their application for renewal sufficiently early, they could have obtained a date for an interview at least seven days before the date of expiry of the visa. There are no latches or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. There is no delay on the part of the opposite parties in completing Form DS-160, as is alleged. This was on account of the changes brought about on the US Consulate website with respect to the application procedure.

It is pertinent to note that the complainants did not bother about renewing the visa despite the lapse of around four years. They applied for the renewal only at the last moment, as suggested by the opposite parties, as due to the Corona pandemic, the usual renewal time of 1 year was extended to 4 years. The opposite parties had informed them of the difficulty in getting the renewal without a personal interview when they remitted the amount for visa renewal. The opposite parties did not delay the process even for a single day. It is submitted that in the normal course, the amount paid to the US Consulate is nonrefundable. The opposite parties used all their efforts with the US Consulate to secure the earliest possible date for the interview for visa renewal. The interview is now scheduled for 16.04.2025, which is the earliest possible date of appointment that could be obtained. The complainants knew they could not secure a waiver of the interview because of their own fault. For that reason, the complainants requested the opposite parties to fix an interview as soon as possible. The Consulate allows the dates of the interview, and no other person has any say or control over them.

 The opposite parties made all the formalities for securing the interview waived visa renewal with due diligence. The charge for the renewal was duly paid to the US Consulate. Now, the date of the interview has also been scheduled. The complainants have deliberately suppressed the fact that the date of the interview for the visa renewal was already obtained. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As the amount paid by the complainants has already been paid to the US Consulate, the amount cannot be refunded to the complainants. The opposite parties are not retaining the amount paid by the complainants. The complainants are not entitled to claim or get any amount from these opposite parties.

The first complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit A1to A5. The second opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibits B-1 and B2.

We would like to consider the following points in evaluating the complaint, version, and the evidence on record.

1. Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties? 
2. If so, what are the reliefs and costs?

Point Nos. 1 & 2

There is no dispute that the first complainant visited the office of the opposite parties on 24.06.2023, to book a round-trip flight ticket from Kochi to the USA. At that time, opposite parties assured the complainants that they would renew the USA Visa of the complainants by availing them of the benefit of an interview waiver for which the complainants are qualified.  According to the complainants, believing the assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainants paid an amount of ₹ 47000/- to the opposite parties on 26.06.2023 and entrusted all the details and documents, including their old and new passports. It is proved by exhibit A1, which is a receipt issued by the branch manager of the opposite parties, that the complainant had paid ₹ 47000/- on 26.07.2023 to the opposite parties for USA visa renewal fees.

On 19.07.2023, they received an exhibit A2 series email from the Consulate of the USA, confirming that the application process was completed. The complainant alleges that on 22.07.2023, the complainants were informed by the opposite parties that the appointment on 21.07.2023 was cancelled. According to the complainant, the appointments were cancelled, stating the reason for the "no show" was that the opposite parties had failed to appear before the U.S. consulate on the scheduled date and time with the relevant documents.

The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties, stating that on 27.06.2023, the opposite parties paid the visa fees to the US Consulate vide exhibit B1 through the Axis Bank. According to the opposite parties, the appointment confirmation received from the US Consulate was promptly intimated to the complainants through exhibit B2 WhatsApp communication. Complainants allege that the opposite parties only completed the form DS160 online on 19.07.2023.i.e., a mere day before the final eligibility date of 22.07.2023 for interview waiver-based visa applications. According to the complainants, the opposite parties submitted the application 23 days after the complainants handed over the documents to the opposite parties. Notably, a visa application can only be filed by paying the visa renewal fees. It is further proved by exhibit B2 that the opposite parties intimated to the complainant on 28.06.2023 that the appointment was scheduled for 21.07.2023 at 03:15 PM. The appointment can only be made by paying the visa renewal fees and filing the application.

Another allegation made by the complaint was that the opposite party did not appear before the US Consulate on the scheduled days, and hence, the appointment was cancelled as a 'No Show.' Even though the complainants made this allegation in their complaint and in the proof affidavit, no evidence has been produced to prove the same. None of the documents produced by the complainants  shows that the interview was cancelled as a No Show.' According to the opposite parties, when a person does not appear on the appointment date, the Consulate will tag it as a "No Show." Then, the receipt will be activated within the next 24 hours, and the applicant can reschedule the appointment date.

On going through exhibit A3 series, which is the email communications sent by the Consulate of the USA to the complainants, we can see that the Consulate informed the complainants that their appointment on 21.07.2023 has been cancelled. From this and exhibit A2 series, we can see that it is evident that the opposite parties completed the application process of the complainants for the renewal of the visa only on 19.07.2023. It is explicitly clear from the exhibits A3 series that the US consulate cancelled the appointment and did not reject it as claimed by the opposite parties. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the argument of the opposite parties that the visa was rejected for the reason that the US consulate requires seven days for processing had the opposite parties submitted the application for renewal and completed the DS-160 form in a timely manner, the U.S Consulate would not have cancelled the application of the complainants. Therefore, it is evident that the appointment was cancelled due to the delay caused by the opposite parties in submitting the application form and completing the DS160 form. The opposite parties, agents and service providers for obtaining the US visa renewal, should have filed the application of the complainants with the US consulate without any delay.

Section 2 (11) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 defines Deficiency of Service as "any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes (a) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person to the consumer and (b) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer."

As discussed above, the opposite parties were negligent in submitting the application form of the complainants and completing the DS160 form without causing any delay. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by causing an inordinate delay in filing the application form and completing the DS160 form with the US Consulate, which led to the cancellation of the appointment of the complainants for the renewal of the visa. No doubt, due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered much mental agony and financial loss, for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate. In the result, we allow this complaint and pass the following order.

We hereby direct the opposite parties to refund ₹ 47,000/- to the complainants together with interest @ 9% from 26.07.2023 till realization. We hereby direct the opposite parties to pay ₹ 25,000/- as compensation to the complainants for the deficiency in service of the opposite parties.

The opposite parties are further directed to deliver the required documents belonging to the complainant in order to duly appear before the U.S consulate and attend their rescheduled VISA appointment.

The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply with the order within 30 days from receipt of the copy of this order, failing in which the compensation amount shall carry interest @9% from the date of this order till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28^th day of June, 2024

Sri. Manulal V.S, President             Sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                  Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 -   Copy of the receipt received from the 1^st opposite party on payment of

₹ 47,000/- dated 26.06.2023.

A2-    Computer printout of confirmation mail dated 19.07.2023

A3  -  Mail dated 12.08.2023 received from  US Visa scheduling regarding the cancellation of the appointment on 21.07.2023.

A4  -  Copy of the registered letter dated 31.10.2023

A5  -  Copy of the legal notice dated 10.11.2023.

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

B1 – Copy of the payment acknowledgement –US Visa fees.

B2 – Whatsapp chat of John Travisa Ancheri.

By Order,

                                                                                                    Assistant Registrar