JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

The complainants before us, planned to visit Germany and for the purpose they made payment of Rs. 71,000/- to the petitioner company.  The complainants in revision petition no. 4169/2014 made payment of Rs. 21,000/- by way of a cheque dated 27.08.2009, Rs. 22,000/- by way of demand draft dated 29.09.2009 and  Rs. 28,000/- cash on 29.09.2009.  He was issued an invoice dated 02.10.2009 for a sum of Rs. 71,000/-.  He received a letter dated 01.10.2009 from the Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany informing him that visa had not been granted to him.  According to the aforesaid complainant, it was only at 12 am on 02.10.2009 that he was informed about cancellation of the tour package.  The complainant in revision petition no. 4170/2014 made payment of Rs. 71,000/- to the petitioner by way of a cheque dated 01.10.2009 and also submitted documents including passports on that date.  The aforesaid payment was received and an invoice dated 02.10.2009 was received by him.  He was also denied visa and informed about cancellation at 12 am on 02.10.2009.  It would be pertinent to note here that the aforesaid complainants were scheduled to leave for Germany on 03.10.2009.  The complainants in revision petition no. 4171/2009 made payment of Rs. 71,000/- vide cheque dated 01.10.2009 and he was also issued invoice of date 02.10.2009.  He also learnt about the cancellation at 12 am on 02.10.2009.

2.      The complainants approached the petitioner company for refund of the amount which they had paid to it.  The petitioner company, however, rejected their request on the ground that under the terms and conditions notified at the time of booking, the entire amount paid by them stood forfeited.  Being aggrieved with the decision of the petitioner company, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate complaints seeking refund of the amount which they had paid to the petitioner, alongwith compensation and costs of litigation.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company.  A perusal of the stand taken by the petitioner in the complaint filed by Sh. S. Thamilvannan would show that according to the petitioner company, it was not responsible for denial of visa to the complainant by German Embassy.  This was also the plea taken by the petitioner company that they had charged Rs. 71,000/-, as per procedure for a group booking of 15 travellers, as per the quotation given by them to Tamilnadu Bakers Federation.  In the complainant of Sh. K. S. Marimuthu, the complainant in revision petition no. 4170/2014, the petitioner company took the stand that as per the terms and conditions of the booking, the documents for processing of visa were required to be submitted at least 30 days before the date of departure.  This was also the case of the petitioner company that the required documents were received by them from the aforesaid complainant only in the evening of 23.09.2009 and despite having submitted the visa fee on 24.09.2009, they were able to get appointment from VFS, the agency processing visa applications in Germany only on 01.10.2009.  It was also stated in the reply that since the petitioner company did not receive visa till 12 noon on 02.10.2009, the complainant was informed accordingly.  It was also pointed out in the reply that a sum of Rs. 23,000/- was refunded to the aforesaid complainant as per the policy of the petitioner company, while forfeiting the rest of the amount paid by him.

4.      In the case of Mr. M. Naina Mohamed, the complainant in revision petition no. 4171/2014, it was stated in the reply filed by the petitioner company that though the passport of the complainant was received by them on 13.09.2009, but the required documents were received only on 23.09.2009.  The petitioner claimed that despite having paid the visa fee on 24.09.2009, it was able to get the appointment from VFS only on 01.10.2009.  The petitioner denied any negligence on its part in rendering service to the complainant and claimed that there was no default on its part in submitting the documents of the complainant to VFS.

5.      In the complaints, subject matter of revision petition no. 4171/2014 and 4170/2014, the District Forum directed the petitioner company to pay Rs. 71,000/- each to the complainants alongwith Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- each as costs of litigation.

6.      In the complaint filed by Sh. S. Thamilvannan, the complainant in revision petition no. 4169/2014, the District Forum directed the petitioner company to refund the amount of Rs. 71,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum.  It was also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation to the aforesaid complainant.

7.      Being aggrieved from the orders passed by the District Forum, the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals.  The said appeals having been dismissed, the petitioner company is before us, by way of these separate revision petitions.

8.      The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the terms and conditions contained in the brochure containing special package for Tamilnadu Bakers Federation.  Admittedly, the complainants had done booking in terms of the aforesaid package.  However, the learned counsel could not point out any term in the aforesaid brochure permitting the petitioner company to forfeit the money deposited by intending travelers in a case where visa was denied to them.  Therefore, it would not be correct to say that as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties, the petitioner company was entitled to refund the money which it had received from the complainant, in case visas was denied to them by the concerned Embassy.

9.      In our view, in case the visit to Germany did not materialize on account of refusal of visa, the petitioner company in all fairness must return the amount which it had received from the complainants, if the denial of visa was attributable to delay in submitting documents required for grant of visa and the petitioner company accepted money knowing it that considering the limited time between receipt of documents by it and the scheduled date of departure, visa was not likely to be granted by the German Embassy.

10.    The next question which arises for our consideration is as to whether there was any deficiency on the part of the petitioner company in rendering services to the complainant in connection with their application for grant of visa by the Embassy of Germany.  The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out as per the terms and conditions of package, all documents requiring process by them were to be submitted at least 30 days prior to the date of departure.  The petitioner company’s contention is that the complainants were scheduled to depart on 03.10.2009 and the documents ought to have been submitted by the petitioner by 03.09.2009, which admittedly was not done.  We find that in all the complaints, the petitioner company accepted the money from the complainants much after the aforesaid date of 03.09.2009.  In the case of S. Thamilvannan, the petitioner company accepted Rs. 50,000/- from the aforesaid complainant on 29.09.2009.  Since the petitioner company as per its own case, required 30 days to process the documents for the purpose of submitting visa applications and only three days were left when the complainants approached it alongwith the aforesaid payment, the petitioner company ought not to have accepted the payment of Rs. 50,000/- from him on 29.09.2009.  The petitioner company knew on 29.09.2009 that it would not be possible for the aforesaid complainant to get visa within the available time of about three days.  But despite the aforesaid knowledge, it chose to accept the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from him, obviously with a view to forfeit the aforesaid amount despite knowing that visa was not likely to be granted to the aforesaid complainant.  This, in our opinion, was clearly a deficiency in service and in fact would also constitute an unfair practice on the part of the petitioner company.

11.    The petitioner company accepted Rs. 71,000/- each from M. Naina Mohamed and K. S. Marimuthu on 01.10.2009, despite knowing that there was no chance of the aforesaid person getting visa before the scheduled date of departure i.e. 03.10.2009.  It was absolutely unfair on the part of the petitioner company to have accepted the aforesaid payments from M. Naina Mohamed and K. S. Marimuthu on 01.10.2009 when they knew that they stood no chance of getting visa within 1-2 days available in the meanwhile.

12.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petitioner company, in our opinion, was clearly deficient in rendering services to the complainant and in fact it indulged into unfair practice by accepting money from the complainants at a time when it knew that they stood almost no chance for getting visa for travelling to Germany.  Therefore, we find no good reason to interfere with the view taken by the District Forum, which has been upheld by the State Commission.  We find no merit in revision petitions and the same are dismissed.  We, however, make it clear that if any amount has in the meanwhile been paid by the petitioner company to any of the complainant, it would be entitled to adjust the aforesaid amount while complying with the orders of the District Forum.