Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/879/2017

Sh. Kamal jit Singh Sandhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Amarbir Dhaliwal Adv.

05 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	879/2017
Date of Institution	:	14.11.2017
Date of Decision	:	05.12.2018

 

                                       

                                               

1. Sh.Kamaljit Singh Sandhu s/o Sh.Kartar Singh r/o VPO Ratta Khera(Punjab Singh Wala),  Tehsil and District Ferozepur-142052.

 

2. Smt.Surinder Kaur wife of Sh.Kamaljit Singh Sandhu r/o VPO Ratta Khera(Punjab Singh Wala),  Tehsil and District Ferozepur-142052.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd., DLF Building NO.5, Tower B, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2,  Sector 25, Gurugram, Haryana -122002 , India.

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by

                Sh.Amarbir Dhaliwal, Adv. for the complainant

                Sh.Satpal Dhamija, Adv. for the OP.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

                    The complainants have filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as “the OP”) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint as alleged by the complainants are that being allured by the representations made by the OP, they decided to book and purchase a Holiday Travel Package for the European Continent and made a payment of Rs.2,77,179/- to the OP through the credit cards. It was averred that the OP assured that they shall face no hiccups in securing a Schengen Visa as the travel pack shall justify the concerned authorities about the purpose and conditions of the travel period.   The complainants have submitted their documents at VFS Centre, Elante Mall, Chandigarh for obtaining Schengen Visa and paid Rs.12,744/- towards visa fees. However, the complainants received a letter dated 18.08.2017 whereby the visa of the complainants was rejected on the ground that the information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable.  According to the complainants they have suffered huge mental stress agony, embarrassment because the visa was rejected due to the shortcomings and laxity on the part of the OP.  It has further been averred that the OP refunded Rs.2,70,179/- out of Rs.2,77,179/- and the remaining amount of Rs.70,000/- was retained illegally and arbitrarily.  Subsequently, the complainants got served a legal notice dated 13.10.2017 upon the OP but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainants have filed the instant complaint.

2.         In its written statement, the OP has submitted that the complainants booked the online tour package to Europe through the website of the OP and before confirmation, an user agreement was entered between the complainants and the OP and thereafter they provided confirmed air tickets as well as hotels bookings to the complainants. It has further been pleaded that the visa application was moved and rejected by the concerned embassy and upon this the complainants requested for cancellation of the tour package.  It has further been pleaded that as far as denial of visa is concerned, it is not under the domain of the OP.  It has further been pleaded that on cancellation of the tour, the OP has refunded an amount of Rs.2,07,179/-  to the complainants.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed..
3.         The complainants filed rejoinder to the written reply of the OP controverting its stand and reiterating their own.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         After giving our thoughtful considerations to the rival contentions of the parties and going through the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted for the reasons stated hereinafter. Admittedly, the complainant availed the services of the OP for booking Holiday Travel Package for the European Splendours 2017 (Group Holiday) Paris, Engelberg, Innsbruck, Padova, Milan for 10 Nights and 11 days, by paying a sum of Rs.2,77,179/- through credit cards.  Besides this, the OP had also charged a sum of Rs.12,744/- for getting the Schengen Visas for the complainants. There is no denial of the fact that the complainants submitted all the documents/information to the OP required for the processing/procurement of Visa.  It is also not disputed that the visa application of the complainants was rejected vide letter dated 18.08.2017 by the Embassy of France on the ground that the information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable.
6.         Per contra, the contention raised by the OP in its reply that the OP was supposed to submit the applications before the concerned Embassy/High Commission and the issuance of Visa is the prerogative of the Embassy, is totally absurd and false.  That being so, then the OP should have conveyed the complainants to procure the visa from the concerned Embassy first and only thereafter the OP should have accepted the total amount of Rs.2,77,179/- of the Tour Programme.  
7.         In our considered opinion, the OP, being expert in its field, was approached by the complainants for their expert services, which they failed to render. Thus, it was the responsibility of the OP to properly pursue the visa application of the complainants and present the case to the concerned Embassy only after filling up all the requisite information required for getting the visas.  We have thus, no hesitation in concluding that the visa application of the complainants was rejected due to the negligence of the OP who failed to furnish the requisite information to the concerned Embassy regarding the purpose and intended stay of the complainants. Thus, failure of the OP to arrange visa for the complainants is deficiency in service and further non refund of total amount received from the complainants is an act of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
8.         However, the complainants are not entitled to refund of the Visa fees paid by the OP to the concerned embassy for getting the visas.
9.          In view of the foregoing discussion & findings, the complaint stands allowed against the OP and the OP is directed as under:-

[a]            To refund the remaining amount of Rs.70,000/-  to the complainants.

[b]            To pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- 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. 

10.         This order shall be complied with by the OP  within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP 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.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Sd/-                                Sd/-                            Sd/-          

Announced	[RAVINDER SINGH]	[RAJAN DEWAN]	(PRITI MALHOTRA)
05/12/2018	MEMBER	PRESIDENT	MEMBER