Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/655/2015

Prem Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Make My Trip (India) Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sourabh Goyal Adv. & Sanjeev K. Uppal Adv.

26 Aug 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	655 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	16.11.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	26.08.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Prem Singh, aged 28 years s/o Late Sh.Kewal Singh, R/o House No.371/1, Complex Road, Khuda Lahora, Chandigarh.

 

             …...Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Make My Trip (India) Private Limited, SCO 43-44, Level-I, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160018 through its authorized representative

 

2]  Mohit Thakur, Sales Manager, SCO 43-44, Level-I, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160018

 

3]  Lucky Gaur, Visa Manager, Make My Trip (India) Private Limited, Address:- 243, Info City, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Gurgaon 122016

   

 …... Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Sh.Sourabh Goel, Counsel for the complainant.

           None for the OPs.  

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                As per the case, the complainant and his fiancée-Neha Rani to get married on 1.8.2015, had planned their honeymoon from 22.8.2015 to 30.8.2015 in Europe (Paris, Engleberg, Innsbruck, Padova & Milan) and as such approached OP No.1, who offered a package and sent the details through e-mail (Ann.C-1).  The total cost of the package for two members was Rs.2,94,996/-. It is averred that the said package was containing ‘round trip economy class air fare, air port taxes, Schengen visa charges, travel insurance etc., which was to remain valid for the entire duration of the tour.  It is also averred that as desired by OP No.2, the complainant provided the details of himself and his wife for processing Schengen Visa on 4.8.2015 (Ann.C-2 colly.), which was confirmed by OP No.1 vide e-mail dated 6.8.2015 (Ann.C-3). The OPs on 15.8.2015 sent the details of the air-tickets on e-mail (Ann.C-5).  It is submitted that since the Opposite Party NO.2 Sales Manager of OPs had ensured that as it was a Honeymoon Tour Package, therefore, there will be no glitch in getting the Visa, the entire price consideration was paid by the complainant through bank and RTGS (Ann.C-6).  However, to the shock of the complainant, the OPs on 17.8.2015, after almost 17 days of making the payment and just 5 days prior to the departure, informed the complainant that the Visa for both passengers has been refused by the Embassy of France (Ann.C-7 & C-8 Colly.).  It is pleaded that a bare perusal of the Visa rejection letters shows that the Visas have been rejected only due to negligence of the OPs and there is no fault of the complainant because it has been denied for the reason “the information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable.”.  It is also pleaded that the OPs did not refund the amount paid by the complainant despite making request for the same.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

 

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have filed joint reply and raised objection that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is stated that all the transactions with the Opposite Parties are governed by website’s User Agreement, applicable to the person(s) intending to purchase or inquiring for any products and/or services of the Opposite Party by using OP Websites or using any other customer interface channels of Opposite Party and thus, the Opposite Party is not liable for any claim whatsoever as being alleged in the complaint (Ann.-B Colly). It is admitted that the complainant approached the Opposite Party to book a Europe Tour for his honeymoon, for 8 nights and 9 days from 22.8.2015 to 30.8.2015 and paid an advance amount of Rs.2,94,000/-.  It is stated that the Opposite Party forwarded all the relevant documents and fulfilled all formalities of the concerned Embassy for Visa processing. It is submitted that the complainant got a call and his appointment was fixed for the interview along with his wife.  It is also submitted that the issuance and rejection of the Visa is the sole prerogative of the concerned Embassy and the Opposite Parties are not responsible for rejection of Visa.  It is also stated that the Opposite Party utilized the said amount on Visa processing for the complainant and his wife and paid the Visa processing charges and fees, which is not refundable, moreover the booking amount was also utilized over the booking of hotels, flights and other tours, which are booked in advance by the Opposite Party as per the itinerary.  Therefore, the refund was not possible for the Opposite Party to provide, but inspite of this, the Opposite Party offered a refund of Rs.56000/- to the complainant which he refused to accept and demanded the entire booking amount, which was not feasible for the Opposite Party to provide.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Replication has been filed by the complainant thereby controverting assertions of the Opposite Parties.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

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

 

6]        So far the objection of the OPs that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, the same is not tenable, because the process of whole transaction took place at Chandigarh with Opposite Party NO.1 and further the payment towards the tour package was made to the OP No.1 at Chandigarh, therefore, the cause of action has accrued at Chandigarh and thus, this Forum has the jurisdiction to try & adjudicate the present complaint.

 

7]       Admittedly, the complainant availed the services of the OPs for booking Honeymoon Package to Europe for 8-9 days by paying entire consideration of the tour package i.e. Rs.2,94,000/-.  Further, it is evident on record that the entire amount paid for the package includes round trip economy class air fare, airport taxes, Schengen visa charges, travel insurance etc. which was to remain valid for the entire duration of the tour. No denial of the fact that the complainant also submitted all the documents to the OPs required for the processing/procurement of Visa.  Admittedly, the Visas applied for the above tour were not granted as were refused by the Embassy of France. 

 

8]       The ld.Counsel for the complainant submitted that Visa rejection letters shows that Visas have been rejected due to negligence of the OPs and as such, they are liable to make the refund of the entire amount paid for the tour package. It is also submitted that the complainant vide e-mail dated 4.8.2015 duly supplied his details and details of his wife, for processing of Schengen Visa and was also confirmed by the OPs vide e-mail dated 6.8.2015 that the documents submitted for Visa, are in order and OPs did not ask for any of the details or the documents from the complainant.  Meaning thereby that no further documents were required for applying Schengen Visa. 

 

9]       The Counsel for the complainant claimed that vide e-mail dated 11.8.2015, complainant enquired from the OPs about the confirmation of Visa, which was not replied.  Claimed that on 15.8.2015, the OPs sent details of the booking of air-tickets on e-mail to the complainant, but to the utter surprise of the complainant on 17.8.2015, after almost 17 days of the payment and just 5 days prior to the departure, the OPs through e-mail informed the complainant that the Visa for both passengers has been refused by the Embassy of France.  The copies of Visa rejection letters of the Embassy were also sent by the OPs along with above said e-mail.

 

10]      The complainant was awestruck to notice that both the Visas have been rejected on 11.8.2015, whereas the OPs conveyed about the same to the complainant on 17.8.2015.  It is claimed that the complainant, left with no other option, except to immediately ask for the refund of entire amount paid to the OPs for providing tour package. He again vide e-mails dated 19.8.2015 and 18.10.2015 respectively asked for refund of the whole amount. Again to the surprise to the complainant, the OPs through e-mail dated 19.8.2015 expressed their apology for not refunding the amount and sought time to discuss the issue in detail.  After seeking time again and again, the OPs on 20.10.2015 i.e. after more than 2 months, finally refused to refund the amount paid by the complainant.  It is claimed that the refusal to refund the amount is sheer deficient act of the OPs and the Visas too were refused for the fault attributable on the part of the OPs, who failed to supply the information properly to the Embassy. Claimed that had the OPs pursued the Visa applications in a proper manner, the Visas would not have been rejected, as the rejection was on account of “the information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable.”. 

 

11]      On the contrary, the plea of the OPs is that they duly performed their duties by providing tour confirmation details and also in regard to the processing of the Visas.  It is claimed that applications for processing Visas were to be made at the end of OPs, but issuance and rejection of Visa is absolutely prerogative of the concerned Embassy and the OPs have no say in this respect. Further, it is submitted that the OPs duly processed the Visa applications for complainant and his wife supporting with relevant documents, but Visas which have been rejected are on account of complainant’s own mistake for not giving proper justification for the purpose and conditions of intended stay during his interview at the embassy inspite of the whole itinerary and tour package provided by the OPs. It is further claimed that the complainant is not entitled for the refund, as per the Cancellation policy, which is as under:-

    CACELLATION POLICY

Time Period	Amount to be deducted
Prior to 45 days or more	Booking fee will be refunded
Between 44 to 31 days of departure	25% of Holiday cost
Between 30 to 15 days of departure	50% of Holiday cost
Between 14 to 8 days of departure	75% of Holiday cost
Prior to 7 days of departure	100% of booking cost

 

         It is further argued on behalf of the OPs that as per the cancellation policy, mentioned above, the OPs are entitled to recover 100% of the amount, but still as a good will gesture, they offered Rs.56,000/- to the complainant, which he refused to accept and insisted for the whole refund of the amount for which the OPs are not liable. 

 

12]      From the submissions of the parties and from the evidence produced on record, a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is made out.  This deficiency in service is apparent from the fact that the Visas applied for by the complainant and his wife were got rejected on 11.8.2015 and the OPs lately conveyed the said decision to the complainant on 17.8.2015 despite having full knowledge qua rejection of Visas on 11.8.2015 itself. To our great surprise, once the OPs were having knowledge of the rejection of the Visas of the complainant and his wife before hand on 11.8.2015, then there was no occasion to proceed with the bookings of the air-tickets and other bookings, which admittedly they confirmed on 15.8.2015 to the complainant. 

 

13]      In their reply ‘on merits’, the OPs themselves have admitted that they have not lately informed the complainant about the rejection of the Visas by the Embassy, but was verbally informed on the same day (i.e. 11.8.2015) on getting aware about the rejection of Visas and later on the complainant was informed vide e-mail dated 17.8.2015.

 

14]      In our considered opinion, the OPs, being expert in their field, were approached by the complainant for their expert services, which they failed to render. It is not denied that the OPs were service provider in the entire transaction including travel, visa, stay, food etc.  Thus, it was the responsibility of the OPs to properly pursue the visa applications of the complainant and his wife.  Once, the OPs had charged for all services, it was at least the duty of the OPs to inform the complainant for any document or information, if any, required with the Embassy; but they have never asked the complainant about any other documents for processing of visas.

 

         Very strangely, the OPs vide their reply shifted their burden on the shoulders of the complainant stating that both visas were rejected on account of complainant’s own mistake by not giving proper interview at the Embassy. In this regard, the OPs also failed to contradict, by any cogent evidence, the assertions of the complainant that he never received any call, information or e-mail regarding the interview from the Embassy authorities.  Thus, the OPs cannot escape from their liability stating that Visa was rejected on account of the fault of the complainant himself, who failed to give reliable justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay during his interview before the Embassy; which as per the version of the complainant was never attended being not called for by the Embassy. 

 

15]      Acting deficiently, the OPs despite refusal of the Visas on 11.8.2015, went on booking of the flights for complainant and his wife on 15.8.2015 and also claimed to have booked hotels and other tours. The OPs took the plea that all the bookings were applied in advance for the tour programme of the complainant and his wife. This plea of the OPs is of no help to detain the hard earned money of the complainant.  As it is evident that the OPs were timely intimated about the cancellation of the visas, so they should have initiated the process of cancellation of the bookings, so that the complainant should not suffer financial loss, but they did not do so, which further proves their deficiency in rendering proper service.

16]      In our considered opinion, the OPs not only rendered deficient services towards the complainant, but also resorted to unfair trade practice, by initially offering the refund of Rs.56,000/- vide e-mail dated 19.8.2015 (Ann.C-12 -Page-61), wherein it is mentioned that “As booking was cancelled 4 days prior to departure so we are at 100% liability & 100% cancellation will be charged for the initial pkg cost.  However, we can refund amount of Rs.56,000 paid for the optional tours (Value Pack+Jungfrau tour) which were booked later on.” and thereafter, vide e-mail dated 20.10.2015 (Annexure C-15) the OPs completely refused the refund of the entire amount to the complainant. 

 

17]      From the discussion above, it has rightly been concluded that the OPs rendered deficient service towards the complainant and also indulged into unfair trade practice by retaining the hard earned money of the complainant as the OPs despite the rejection of the Visas, continued with the booking of air-tickets and other bookings, which should not have been done, being futile exercise. 

 

18]     In view of the foregoing discussion & findings, the complaint stands allowed against the OPs and the OPs are jointly & severally directed as under:-

[a] To refund the payment of booking amount of Rs.2,94,000/- to the complainant;

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.25000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing immense mental agony and harassment due to deficient services and having indulged into unfair trade practice;

[c] To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. 

         This order shall be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay the awarded amount, as at sub-para [a] & [b] above, along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization, apart from paying the litigation expenses.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

26^th August, 2016                                                                      Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER