Haryana

StateCommission

A/472/2018

MAKE MY TRIP - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARUN VEER AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

PRINCE PAWAIYA

06 Feb 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

Date of Institution:03.04.2018

Date of final hearing:06.02.2024

Date of pronouncement:12.02.2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

First Appeal No.472 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office at DLF Building No.5, Tower -C, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2, Sector-25, Gurugram, Haryana- 122002.

…Appellant

Through counsel Mr. J.S. Maan, Advocate

 

Versus

1.      Mr. Karun Veer s/o Shri Uday Veer Singh, R/o House No.124, Lal Kurti Bazaar, Ambala Cantt, Haryana-133001.

….Respondent No.1.

2.      Ms. Anju Sarwa W/o Mr. Karun Veer, R/o House No.124, Lal Kurti Bazaar, Ambala Cantt, Haryana-133001.

….Respondent No.2.

Through counsel Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate

 

3.      Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Prem Nagar, Ambala City.

...Respondent No.3.

4.      Mr. Piyush Dhingra, Registered Office UG-7 (Front Side), TDI Mall, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027, India.

...Respondent No.4.

Service Dispensed with.

Present:-    Mr. J.S. Maan, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2.

                   Service of respondents No.3 & 4 already dispensed with vide order dated 17^th January, 2023.

CORAM:   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
 

 

O R D E R

 

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                    Delay of 13 days in filing of present appeal is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.                Present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.02.2018, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (now “District Commission”), whereby both the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite parties (“OPs”) were directed as under:-

“i.  To pay Rs.95,000/- to the complainants (out of the balance amount of Rs.1,05,000/-) alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.

ii.  To pay to the complainants Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation and compensation for mental agony and harassment.”

 

3.                Brief facts of complaint filed before learned District Commission are that the on 08.08.2015 the complainants booked a Unique Swiss Paris Group Tour 2014 on 28.02.2014 by paying initial booking amount of Rs.40,000/- through RTGS vide booking No.IN1312B3S005609 as minimum required amount as 20% and the tour was scheduled to start on 28.02.2014. On 29.01.2014 the officers of OPs demanded various documents through e-mail for applying VISA. The complainants deposited requisite documents which were duly confirmed vide email dated 08.02.2014 and further informed that only NOC from employer of one of the complainants was required. The OPs demanded Rs.1 lac before filing of VISA application and vide emails dated 11.02.2014 and 12.02.2014 intimated that in case Rs.1 lac is not deposited then the VISA would not be applied. The complainants thereafter paid Rs.1 lac vide bank transfer bearing No.ID, ATM XFR on 15^th February, 2014.  The OPs asked the complainants to attend an interview in the Embassy on 19^th Feburary, 2014 which remained successfully but vide e-mail dated 24.02.2014 it was informed that the VISA for Switerzerland has been rejected by the Embassy.  It was alleged that the reason for rejection of VISA is not justified. Moreover, there was no occasion for rejection of VISA on account of possibility of No return from Switzerland. The trip could not be completed because same was a group tour due to fault of the OPs.  It was further alleged that the complainants requested the OPs for providing substitute trip but to no avail.  The complainants also visited the office of OPs at Gurgaon on 18.08.2015 but they allowed to refund Rs.35,000/- only by saying that rest amount of Rs.1,05,000/- has been forfeited on account of hotel and flight booking.  Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4.                Upon notice, OP Nos. 1 to 4 have appeared before learned District Commission and submitted their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that OP Nos. 1 to 4 is well reputed and highly acclaimed Tour and Travel Company and it carriers its business throughout and all the transactions with them are governed by user agreement applicable to the person intending to purchase or inquiring for any products and or services of OPs by using their website or using any other customer interface channels of OPs. It was submitted that in the month of November, 2013 the complainants desired to book the tour to France and Switzerland and as per request of the complainants the Unique Swiss Paris Group Tour 2014 was booked on having received partial/initial payment of Rs.40,000/-.  Rs.1 lac was demanded for booking with different service providers but the VISA was rejected by concerned embassy on the merit basis of complainant’s documents and the same was intimated to them through email on dated 24.02.2014. It was further submitted that the tour was to start on 28.02.2014 and the VISA was rejected on 19.02.2014 i.e. only 9 days prior to the date of departure, therefore, on rejection of VISA on short notice the booking fell under 100% cancellation as per the VISA Policy and hence part payment thereof was given to them.  The VISA was rejected as per its cancellation policy, therefore, complainants are not entitled for any refund. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

5.                After hearing both the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint of complainant and issued directions to the OPs as mentioned in Para 2^nd (Supra)

6.                Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 15.02.2018, OP No.3-appellant has preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission.

7.                Arguments have been advanced by Mr. J.S. Maan, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence have been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.                It is an admitted fact that on 08.08.2015, the complainants-respondents No.1 & 2 had booked a Unique Swiss Paris Group Tour 2014 on 28.02.2014 by paying initial booking amount of Rs.40,000/- through RTGS vide booking No.IN1312B3S005609 as minimum required amount was 20%  besides paying of Rs.1 lac as per the demand made by the OP (appellant).  The tour was scheduled to start on 28.02.2014. Therefore, the complainants have deposited total amount of Rs.1,40,000/- with the appellant-OP. It is also an admitted fact that respondents No.1 & 2-complainants could not enjoy the tour package due to not granting of VISA by the concerned authorities and the OPs have refunded Rs.35,000/- to the complainants out of the total deposited amount to the tune of Rs.1,40,000/-.  However, as per the respondents No.1 & 2-complainants, the appellant-OP had wrongly and illegally withheld rest of the amount of Rs.1,05,000/- as it was never disclosed to them that in case if VISA is rejected then huge amount out of the total deposited amount would be forfeited on account of cancellation of bookings of hotels and flights as this fact is mentioned by the present appellant-OP in the email dated 08.09.2015, relevant portion of that e-mail is reproduced as under:-

“Rest the entire amount forfeited for the cancellation of the hotels and the flight bookings as it was a last moment cancellation”.

9.                As per the present appellant-OP, the respondents No.1 & 2-complainant are not entitled for any refund in case of rejection of VISA but on the other hand they have refunded Rs.35,000/- to them as per the terms and conditions of the company, but it is nowhere established that said terms and conditions were ever conveyed to the respondents No.1 & 2-complainants and the they(complainants) have affixed their signatures thereon after accepting the terms and conditions. This act and conduct of the OPs (present appellants) clearly indicate their unprofessional behavior towards the customers which is clear cut deficiency in service on their part.

10.              It is pertinent to mention here that despite the fact that OPs admitted deficiency in service on their part before learned District Commission, the OPs instead of complying with the order of District Commission, preferred present appeal before this Commission, which is a tactic just to delay the matter unnecessarily.

11.              Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Commission. Impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law. Therefore, the present appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed and therefore, stands dismissed.

12.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt, identification and due verification as per rules.

13.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

14.              Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

15.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

Pronounced on 12^th February, 2024

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III