<br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> These two complaints are filed by different complainants who are none other than the mother and the daughter against the same opponent with similar allegations and for similar reliefs as such are taken together for disposal by a common order.<br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainants in brief are, that OP is involved in the activities of arranging and conducting tours including abroad. That during May 2008 they intended to visit Eqypt, Greece and Turkey as tourists and approached OP to arrange tour for them. OP agreed to arrange the tour on payment of Rs.1,59,429/- each by each of these complainants and schedule date and tour was fixed on 15-9-2008. That they had paid the entire tour money in installments. That the OP had taken the responsibility for arranging their Visas and assured they would be obtained. But later on OP informed them to obtain Visa they should go to Embassy of Greece in New Delhi. That they had given all the required documents to OP to enable them to arrange Visa and accordingly they went to Delhi on 11-9-2008 incurring flight expenditure etc., of Rs.15,000/- each. But on 11-9-2008 OP informed then that Visa have been granted to both of them but on 13-9-2008 OP again told them that Greece Embassy has granted Visa only to the complainant of the 1st complaint and not to the 2nd complainant, who is the daughter of the 1st complainant. Then the 1st complainant did not want to go for tour alone leaving her daughter back and requested the OP to refund their tour money, but the OP told them that they would only refund Rs.15,000/- and the balance would be forfeited. Therefore they in order to avoid forfeiture of money were compelled to go for tour but the OP further demanded and collected Rs.36,000/- as additional amount from each of them amounting to Rs.72,000/-. That during tour they had only visited Turkey and Eqypt and they could not go to Greece and they were forced to stay back in Eqypt for 5 days from 22-9-2008 to 26-5-2008 and they have to incur expenditure Rs.15,000/- waiting for returning of other tourists who came with them and had gone to Greece. The complainants therefore alleged that the OP has collected excess money from them has failed to refunded money he had collected to visit a Greece and thereby have prayed for a direction to OP to refund a sum of Rs.66,000/- each to each of them being the extra amount they were made to spend with interest @ 15% on that amount, to pay damages of Rs.3 Lakhs and also to award costs.<br /> <br /> OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version which is common is narrated as under. That this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. That every tourist is provided with World Showcase of the year which contain terms and conditions. The complainants are bound by those terms and conditions. Admitting that tour conducted, the payments made by the complainants has contended that as per the clauses of the terms and conditions all disputes pertaining to tour and travel conducted by them are subjected to Mumbai jurisdiction. The complaints therefore is not maintainable in this Forum. It is further contended issue of Visa is not in their control and that concerned Embassy is the authority which may or may not grant visa, for which he is not responsible and stated that when the complainants were told to travel to Delhi for interview they proposed to cancel the tour and did not agree to go to Delhi. Then he had offered to refund money which all caused delay in approaching Greece Embassy for Visa and therefore it is because of the delay of these complainants approaching Embassy had resulted in denial of Visa to the 2nd complainant. OP denying his knowledge about complainant’s expenditure of Rs.15,000/- to go to Delhi stated to had given offer to refund Rs.25,000/- each to each of these complainants and send cheque to them but they did not accept and thereby denying in deficiency at his end has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of the enquiry into the complaints, the complainants and one Swapnil Borkar, a Representative of Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaints and version. The complainants along with the complaints have produced copies of registration form, copy of receipts for having paid tour money to the Ops and a copy of a legal notice they got issued to the Ops. OP have produced a copy of minutes of meeting of their Board of Directors with a copy of terms and conditions. Counsel for both parties have filed their written arguments which is nothing but a reproduction of their affidavit evidence. We have perused entire records.<br /> On the above materials following points for determination arise.<br /> i) Whether the complainants have proved that the OP has caused deficiency in service in not refunding the proportionate tour cost for having not visited Greece and in collecting excess money from them?<br /> ii) To what reliefs the complainants are entitled?<br /> <br /> Answer Point No:1 In the affirmative. <br /> Answer Point No:2 To see the final order.<br /> <br /> Reasons:<br /> The facts that these complainants had agreed to the arrangement proposed by the OP for visiting Egypt, Greece and Turkey and they had paid Rs. 1,59,429/- each to the OP as tour expenditure is not in dispute. It is found that the OP had agreed to arrange for getting Visa to these complainants at their cost. When the parties found difficulty in obtaining Visa to Greece, the complainants had to go to Delhi to meet Greece Embassy authorities for issuing Visa. But for their misfortune the Visa was denied to the 2nd complainant. The complainants though blamed the OP in not getting Visa to the 2nd complainant, the OP had taken a correct stand that getting Visa of a country is not in their hands and it depends upon the Embassy which issues Visa. Therefore the complainants could not avoided the expenditure incurred for going to Delhi to approach Greece Embassy authorities for obtaining Visa to the 2nd complainant the OP in no way was responsibly for it and the complainants also have not made any specific allegations of deficiency to the OP in this regard.<br /> <br /> The complainants have contended when they reached Egypt the other tour members who had gone for tour proceeded to Greece from Egypt but both of them have to stay back in Egypt as the 2nd complainant was not having Visa to visit Greece. It is in that connection for their stay in Egypt they alleged that the OP has collected extra Rs36,000/- each from each of them. The OP has not denied receipt of Rs.36,000/- each from each of these complainants but has contended that amount was collected from the complainants towards the expenditure they had incurred for the stay of these complainants until the other team members returned from Greece. But here the OP has not denied that the complainants in the course of their tour were entitled accommodation and other facilities for the amount they had already paid to OP. In the course of arguments, the counsel for the Ops admitted that the OP was liable to look after the accommodation, food and other expenditure of the complainants for the period they had offered out of the tour money they had paid. But none of the parties have placed material before us how many days the complainants could have stayed in Egypt for the money they had paid already to the Ops. However the complainants have stated that they stayed in Egypt for 5 days from 22-09-2008 to 26-09-2008. Therefore out of these five days the OP was liable to meet the expenditure of the complainants for the period he was liable to arrange and for overstay of the complainants until the other team members returned the expenditure that has been incurred in Greece country could have been adjusted for their over stay in the Egypt. The complainants therefore since could not go to Greece the expenditure that was required to be spent on them was not spent by the OP and therefore the OP ought to have refunded the proportionate money to the complainants. <br /> <br /> The OP in his version had conceded that on humanitarian ground he accepted claim of the complainants for refund of certain money paid by the complainants towards Greece country expenditure as the trip to Greece was cancelled and offered to refund Rs.25,000/- to each of these complainants but they did not accept. Thus it emerges that the OP is not denying totally his liability to refund certain part of the money paid by the complainant.<br /> <br /> Complainants in their complaints have claimed Rs.66,000/- each they were compelled to spend as extra money. But in the course of arguments, the counsel for them was not in a position to tell us which that extra money is. They have also prayed for damages on Rs. 3 Lakhs each and also to pay cost of Rs.20,000/- each. Admittedly, the complainants had paid Rs.36,000/- each as extra expenditure for their stay at Egypt, Rs. 15,000/- spent by them is towards Delhi trip for obtaining Visa which can not be refunded. None of the parties have either filed any statement or made any statement before us bifurcating Greece country visits expenditure, to quantify as to what was the proportionate expenditure including travel expense for visiting Greece. Therefore that expenditure visit to Greece country shall have to be workedout approximately. Therefore considering all the aspects of the matter we find it just and equitable to direct the OP to refund Rs.50,000/- each to each of these complainants towards refund of Greece country expenditure and towards excess money collected from the complainants for their overstay at Egypt. With these we answer point No:1 in the affirmative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> Complaints are allowed. OP is directed to refund Rs.50,000/- each to each of these complainants within 45 days from the date of this order failing which shall pay interest 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payments.<br /> <br /> OP shall also pay cost of Rs.1500/- to each of these complainants.<br /> <br /> The Original order shall be kept in Complaint No: CC 345/2009 and the copy of the same shall be kept in the remaining complaint.<br />