Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/987/2022

MANDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAKE MY TRIP PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

RAKESH BAJAJ

22 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/987/2022
Date of Institution	:	21/12/2022
Date of Decision	:	22/10/2024

 

1. Sh. Mandeep Singh son of Sh. Major Singh

2. Smt. Gurpreet Kaur wife of ah. Mandeep Singh

3. Tanveer Singh Dhaliwal (Minor) son of Sh. Mandeep Singh through his father Sh. Mandeep Singh Dhaliwal all resident of H.No.41, Tehsil Kharar, Firesepu Bangar SAS Nagar, Punjab and presently residing at H.No.59, Dhanas, UT, Chandigarh.

..Complainants

Versus

1. MakeMyTrip Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.169-170, Ist floor Sector 8-C, Chandigarh U.T. 160018 through its Manager Authorized Signatory.

2.MakeMyTrip Pvt.Ltd. 19th floor, Tower A, B and C Epitom Building No.5 DLF Cyber City Phase III Guru Gram-122002, India through its Director Managing Authorized Signatory.

3. Rachna Gala, Senior International Holliday Expert of MakeMyTrip Pvt. Ltd.. 19th floor, Tower A, B and C Epitom Building No.5 DLF Cyber City Phase III Guru Gram-122002, India through its Director Managing Authorized Signatory.

4. VFS Global Unit No.B-209, Second floor Office Block-V, Plot No.178-178-A, Industrial Area and Business Park Phase I, Chandigarh-160002 through its Director/Manager/Authorized Party) Signatory (Performa Party)

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                  

 

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Gaurav Deep Goel, Advocate for OPs No.1 to 3.
	:	Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for OP No.4.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated  that the OPs contacted complainants through telephonically as well as through e-mails about different international tour packages in June, 2022 and explained about the different tour packages to the complainants and accordingly complainants booked 7 days holiday packages for two adults, one child for Europe tour package namely Swiss Paris Delight Group from 25.09.2022 to 02.10.2022. The OPs confirmed the package which includes 2 flights, 3 Hotels, changes every day, 3 activities, two transfers and Visa assistances to complainants. The total tour package cost was to the tune of Rs.4,71,567/- for two adults and one child and Rs.26,726/- visa fee, and the tour was subject to visa confirmation which OPs committed as per quotation as Ex.C-1 and as per quotation the OPs booked hotels, flights, travel insurance vide booking I.D. No. NL2203553196454 and all the activities which includes in the tour packages as per quotation sent by OPs with the assurance that visa will be issued to complainants and as per assurance given by OP No.3, the complainants made payment to the tune of Rs.4,71,567/- to OPs No. 1 to 3. The OPs Confirmed the package through e-mail on 01.09.2022 as and as per OPs' instructions, the complainants submitted all the relevant documents alongwith passports alongwith school's No Objection Certificate and accordingly OP No.4 made appointment with concerned Embassies through O.P.No.4. After submitting of documents complainants waited of visa documents from the concerned Embassy but nothing was received from OP No. 4. The complainants visited in the office of OP. No.4 but nothing positive came out and ultimately on 25.09.2022 it was informed to the complainants telephonically by OP No.4 that visa was refused and complainants should collect passport personally from OP. No.4 office. Thereafter the complainants contacted the OPs. No.1 to 3 for refund of their payment, but the OP No.3 sent e-mail Ex.C-12 to the complainants and mentioned that refund process is already sent to concerned department and they will contact to the complainants about the refund. but nothing was done. Ultimately the complainants sent legal notice dated 19.11.2022 to the OPs but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 to 3  in their joint reply while admitting factual matrix of the case stated that  the answering OPs have provided proper assistance to the complainant for submitting their visa application. However, it is denied that the answering OP had committed visa confirmation to the complainants. The answering OP could only merely assist the complainants in submitting their visa application. The confirmed bookings of the hotels, flights, etc. were informed by the answering OP to the complainants and the answering OP had fulfilled its obligations and thus discharged its obligation. The confirmed package through e mail was shared with the complainants and the answering OP had fulfilled its obligation towards the complainants. In fact the complainants were requested to submit their visa applications around 30.06.2022 so that in case of any difficulty the complainants and the answering OP have time to resolve the issue but the complainants submitted their applications in the month of August, 2022, hence, the complainants are suffering due to their own action and in action. The belated applications were filed by the complainants for visa at Chandigarh despite the request of the officials of the answering OP to submit the same at Delhi consulate in order to have a faster access but the complainants insisted at Chandigarh. The answering OP does not have any control over the actions and inactions of the embassy or the visa Issuing authority as once the application in the month of August, 2022 was filed by the complainants the obligation of the answering opposite party was already fulfilled and the answering opposite party had discharged its obligation. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on part of the answering OP as the visa approval or refusal is beyond the control of answering OP. All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
3. OP No.4 in its reply stated that it is only a commercial company working in partnership with Embassies to provide support  services to people applying for visa to foreign country.  The Visa application are processed and decided by the concerned embassy  and the answering OP does not play any part in influencing the outcome of visa application. It is only bound to forward it without further delay for further process by the concerned embassy alongwith requisite fee. Denying any deficiency on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The sole grouse of the complainants through the present complaint is that they have suffered due to the negligent act of the OPs and resultantly, they  could not  travel to Europe for their family trip/tour. Evidently, as per Annexure C-1  the complainants paid an amount of Rs.4,71,567/- for the Swiss Paris Delight Group Departure package for 3 nights in Paris, 2 nights in Adelboden and 1 night in Zurich. The aforesaid package was inclusive of flights tickets, hotels, changes everyday, activities, transfers and visa assistance. Pertinently the complainants could not travel as they could not get the Visa in time. Hence, the present complaint.
8. The stand taken by the OPs  that it is the Visa authority to issue Visa  and they have no role to play to this effect, however, as per their promises hotel, flights etc were booked in advance for the complainants  but due to non-issuance of the Visa to the complainants the instant dispute has arisen in the instant complaint.
9. Notably grant of Visa is the sovereignty of  the receiving country and it is primary duty of the person travelling to a particular country to obtain Visa after filing requisite application and documents in compliance of terms and conditions and laid procedure of the country concerned.  Final decision to grant visa or not is rest with the country concerned. Travelling agent at the most can facilitate its customer for obtaining Visa  but cannot grant the same  from the concerned visa authority.
10. Admittedly the OPs No.1 to 3 wrote to OP No.4 requesting for grant of visa to the complainants and his family members but unfortunately the visa could not be granted. It is also to be noted that despite of payment of huge amount from their hard earned money the complainants could not avail even single service of the OPs. However, perusal of file reveals that Ops No. 1 to 3 tried their best to get the visa formalities completed so that the complainants could travel.
11. In our opinion Visa is necessary for several reasons particularly for national security, migration control, public health and international relation, balance national interest with global mobility of passengers and legitimate traveling while safeguarding the concerned country’s security and well being in general. It is highly recommended  to finalise travel plan after obtaining visa for the destination country especially if visa requirement are strict or processing time are long or rejection reasons are high but in the instant case the OPs No. 1 to 3 in haste and hurry manner collected whole amount from the complainants in advance but did not cover the risk of refusal and forced the complainants to indulge in the instant unnecessary litigation, which is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No. 1 to 3.
12. Moreover, the OPs have placed on record some additional evidence by filing an application but on perusal of the same it reveals that Annexure R-6  and R-9 could not be related with the case in hand which shows that these are self created documents by the OPs No.1to 3 which also shows deficiency and unfair trade practice on their part and they are liable to refund the paid amount to the complainant.
13. So far as the quantum of relief is concerned, as it is proved on record that the OPs have received huge amount from the complainant in advance even before processing of Visa application, hence, we opine that it will be apt to order refund of the paid amount after deduction of 20% as services charges. Therefore,  the OPs No. 1 to 3 are liable to refund Rs.3,77,254/- to the complainants.  
14. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs No. 1 to 3 are directed as under:-

1. to refund ₹3,77,254/-/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint  till onwards.
2. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

15. This order be complied with by the OPs No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
16. Complaint qua OP No.4 stands dismissed.
17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
18.   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
22/10/2024
mp