DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                               Complaint No.  556

                                                Instituted on:    14.09.2016

                                                Decided on:       16.02.2017

Dr. Nirpaul Singh, Retd. Civil Surgeon, resident of Punia Colony, Haripura Road,Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

Kalra Tour and Travels, through its Prop/authorised signatory Tarsem Kalra, Opposite Old Khadi Bhandar, Court Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite party

For the complainant  :       Shri Rajan Kapil, Advocate.

For OP                     :       Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Dr. Nirpaul Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the OP is running the business of air tickets, railway tickets, Volvo tickets, tourist visa, domestic etc under the name and style of Kalra Tour and Travels Sangrur.  Further case of the complainant is that in the month of May, 2016, the complainant approached the OP for booking the tickets of Europe tour for himself, his wife Mira Rani and his daughter Anandita, for which the OP advised the complainant that an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- will be incurred on the said tour including tickets and visa etc. As such, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.65,000/- through cheque dated 26.5.2016 from his account and further paid another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 31.5.2016 through cheque and further paid Rs.2,14,000/- through another cheque.  Further case of the complainant is that in the mid of June, 2016 the OP telephonically informed the complainant that the visa has not been sanctioned by Switzerland Embassy at New Delhi.  That the complainants and his family members had availed the leave from their work and they wanted to go on tour as such the Op advised the complainant for a tour package of Goa and the OP got booked tickets, accommodation for the complainant, whereby an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was spent.  It has been further stated that the visa has been refused due to non submission of sufficient means and documents by the OP, as such the OP is said to be deficient in service. Thus, the complainant approached the OP for return of the amount of Rs.2,20,000/-, but the Op put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- along with interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP, it is admitted that in the month of May, 2016 the complainant approached the OP for booking of the tour package of Europe and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,79,700/- on different dates.  It is further admitted that the tour was booked for the period from 19.6.2016 to 27.6.2016 for three persons.  On 1.6.2016, the Op handed over the tickets, tour programme etc. to the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant himself applied for visa at Chandigarh on 13.6.2016 and the complainant again visited the OP and told that the visa has been rejected by Swiss Embassy of New Delhi due to technical reasons.  Thereafter the complainant told the OP that he has already applied for leave from his department from 18.6.2016 to 28.8.2016 and as such told the Op that he wants to visit Goa and Ooty tour for the period from 19.6.2016 to 28.6.2016. As such, the Op advised the complainant that an amount of Rs.2,15,429/- would be the expenditure for the same. It is further case of the OP that the complainant on 3.7.2016 visited the office of the OP and told him that his family fully enjoyed the Goa and after that the SOTC refunded the amount of Rs.1,24,700/- after deducting the amount of Rs.2,55,000/- (Rs.85,000/- each passenger as per company policy and now an amount of Rs.90,729/- is outstanding against the complainant.  It is further stated that when the Op demanded the amount of Rs.90,729/- from the complainant, then the same was refused by the complainant. Thus, any deficiency in service on the part of the Op has been denied.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of account statement, Ex.C-3 copy of reservation voucher, Ex.C-4 copy of reservation voucher, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 copies of air tickets, Ex.C-8 copy of visa refusal, Ex.C-9 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-10 copy of postal receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of brochure, Ex.OP-3 copy of detail of tour, Ex.OP-4 copy of tour package, Ex.OP-5 and Ex.OP-6copies of insurance, Ex.OP-7 copy of rejection form, Ex.OP-8 copy of insurance, Ex.OP-9 to Ex.OP-10 copies of refusal visa, Ex.OP-11 copy of detail of holidays package, Ex.Op-12 copy of detail of cancellation of tour, Ex.OP-13 copy of check list for visa, Ex.OP-14 and Ex.OP-15 copies of railway tickets, Ex.OP-16 to Ex.OP-18 copies of air tickets, Ex.OP-19 to Ex.OP-20 copies of hotel bookings, Ex.OP-21 copy of notice dated 3.8.2016, Ex.OP-22 return courier, Ex.OP-23 copy of receipt and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant availed the services of the OP  for visiting on Europe tour for the period from 19.6.2016 to 27.6.2016 and paid an amount of Rs.3,79,700/- to the Op on different dates.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that the visa was rejected by the Switzerland Embassy, New Delhi and as such he could not visit on Europe tour.   It is further admitted that due to rejection of the visa for Europe tour, the complainant and his family members had taken leave, as such, they visited Goa and the Op accordingly got booked tickets, accommodation etc. for the purpose.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the visa has been rejected due to the deficiency of service on the part of the Op as the Op did not submit the sufficient means and documents to the Embassy, whereas the Op has denied this fact saying that the visa was applied by the complainant himself and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. But, the complainant has not filed any rejoinder denying this allegation of the OP. But, in the present case, the main point in controversy for adjudication before us is whether the OP is deficient in service or not towards the complainant.   
 

6.             A bare perusal of the file itself reveals that after rejection of the visa by Swiss Embassy, the complainant along with his family members chose to visit Goa for the schedule period, which was arranged by the OP itself.  We feel that the complainant along with his family members visited Goa due to rejection of the visa and we further feel at that time the complainant was satisfied about the rejection of the visa by the Embassy and later on after visiting Goa tour, he got annoyed with the Op and filed the present complaint.  Since it is the specific case of the Op that the complainant himself applied for the visa and the same was rejected by the Embassy due to non submission of sufficient means and documents, which we feel that the complainant had to submit the same to the Embassy at the time of getting the visa, as such, we are unable to hold that the Op is deficient in any way in getting the visa for the complainant and his family members.  Moreover, we may mention that the complainant is himself a doctor by profession and is an literate person and as such, we are unable to go with the contention of the complainant that the OP is deficient in service in any way, more so when the complainant along with his family members chose to visit Goa after rejection of the visa by the Swiss Embassy, which was admittedly arranged by the OP at their own.  It is further worth mentioning that the amount so deposited by the complainant with the Op was spent on purchase of tickets etc. and an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- was deducted out of Rs.3,79,700/- and only an amount of Rs.1,24,700/- was refunded.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that there is no deficiency in service at all on the part of the OP.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 16, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                  Member