Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1022/2016

Dharam Paul Bhateja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kuoni Travel India (Pvt.) Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Kunwar Rajan Adv.

04 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	1022 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	15.12.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	04.09.2017

 

 

 

 

Dharam Paul Bhateja s/o Sh.Niamat Rai Bhateja, R/o House No.2246, Star Enclave, Sector 48C, Chandigarh   

                               …..Complainant

Versus

Kuoni Travel India (Pvt.) Ltd.(SOTC) through its Authorized Officer, SCO 147-148, First Floor, above LG Showroom, Near Sindhi Sweets, Madhya Marg, Sector 8C, Chandigarh. 

                          ….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

 

For complainant      : Sh.Raj Kumar, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party   : Sh.Rohit Kapoor, Advocate                 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant, a retired General Manager, was proposed a tour by the OP for ten days as a Scenic South Africa Tour with Kwantu (Premium) from 5^th March, 2016  (Ann.C-1). It is averred that the complainant took the premium package of Opposite Party for ten days for himself and his wife Santosh Bhateja and paid the booking amount.  It is alleged that the Opposite Party telephonically advised the complainant to go for compulsorily yellow fever injection from the doctor of the choice of Opposite Party, for which the complainant and his wife had to spend Rs.5800/- towards injections besides a lot of mental agony and harassment to them (Ann.C-2 & C-3), whereas, the said injection was not required for the said tour and other co-passengers were also not asked to go for this injection.  It is submitted that the Opposite Party very cleverly after receiving the booking amount further harassed the complainant and his wife by giving them longer journey route for inward and outward journey as compared to other passengers from the same region i.e. Ludhiana and Haryana, as complainant and his wife were given the route Delhi-Mumbai-Nairobi-Johannesburg for outward journey and Capetown-Johannesburg-Nairobi-Mumbai-Delhi for inward journey; the duration of journey, with two stops for onward going and three stops for inward coming to Delhi, was longer by about 22 hours as compared to the journey routes provided to other passengers of same region.  It is also submitted that due to unfair discrimination done by Opposite Party, the longer journey has caused a lot of irreparable physical and mental harassment to the complainant and his wife (senior citizen). It is further submitted that only 10 days visa were arranged for the complainant and his wife, making their schedule very tight whereas the other members of the group were provided with 15 days visa.  It is pleaded that the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs highlighting the deficiency in service and mal-practices adopted by them, but still the OPs refused to compensate the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant considering his budget and specific requirements booked the Scenic South Africa with Kwantu Tour departing on 5.3.2016.  It is averred that before booking that tour, the complainant was provided with all relevant details and only after going through the terms & conditions of the tour booking, the complainant had voluntarily chosen to participate in the said tour (Ann.R-2).  It is stated that the yellow fever vaccination was merely recommended and was advised by the OPs to the complainant, as per the norms of the Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs [Government of India] (Ann.R-3) by Opposite Party based on the past trends and on basis of the rules and regulations of the Immigration Authority of India.  It is denied that the complainant and his wife were compelled to go for yellow fever vaccination. It is stated that the Opposite Party made the best possible flight bookings for the complainant and his wife in clear consultation with them, which in any case was subject to availability and if the complainant had any concern on the same, it ought to have been taken up before confirming their acceptance vide their e-mail dated 30.1.2016 (Ann.R-4) and not at a belated stage after availing and utilizing all services.  It is also stated that the complainant paid the balance tour cost of INR 1,55,900/- barely four days before departure on 1.3.2015 still, the Opposite Party being a customer centric organization booked and confirmed all services including air tickets, hotels, sight-seeing etc. 

         It is pleaded that the Opposite Party has no discretionary power or decision making power in so far as the entire visa process is concerned including scheduling, appointments, verification of documents or accepting or rejecting documents submitted by intending travellers or even obtaining the visa from them. It is also pleaded that Opposite Party is unable to comment on the discretionary authority of the embassy for the grant of Visa as it is a matter of record that the complainant’s application based on the documentation, so submitted was seen, examined and then a visa for 10 days was granted by the respective embassy, which is an admitted position of the complainant and also the Opposite Party is unable to comment on the discretionary authority of the embassy for grant of visa to other participants for 15 days, as alleged, for want of knowledge. It is further pleaded that complainant is making mere conjecture and bald allegations. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OP.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       After going through the facts, evidence adduced by the parties and considering the arguments advanced by both the counsel for the parties, we are of the concerted view on the point that the present complaint has no merits being devoid of any cogent evidence on record corroborating the case of the complainant as set out in the complaint.

 

7]       One of the allegation of the complainant is that he and his wife were forced by the Opposite Parties to undergone the vaccination for Yellow fever from the doctor of their choice.  This allegation is devoid of any merit wanting any evidence on record.  The Opposite Party in defence has placed on record the Regulation of Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (Immigration Visa Foreigners Registration and Tracking) (Ann.R-3) whereby it was advisory as well optional to get oneself vaccinated for the Yellow fever in case travelling the countries listed therein.  In our opinion the Opposite Party, if had advised, the complainant to get himself and his wife vaccinated of Yellow fever injection, had done as a precautionary measure and for the purpose of securing the safety of the passengers in question i.e. complainant and his wife.  We find force in the arguments of the OP. 

 

8]       As regards the issue of booking of the air-tickets of the complainant through long route is concerned, that too is of no value in the present complaint, as nothing concrete has been placed on record to show that the other passengers of the same group were given the shortest route or they travelled through short route, as alleged. 

 

9]       As far as the grouse with regard to issuance of visa for the complainant and his wife only for 10 days is concerned, it is undoubtedly the discretionary power of the concerned Embassy to decide and thus the Opposite Party cannot be blamed for the same.

 

10]      In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case. Hence, the complaint is dismissed being without any merit. No order as to costs.

        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

4^th September, 2017              

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER