Ms.Rachna Arora, Member

1.       Sh.Mehak Chawla has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that before her marriage which was solemnized on 14.10.2016 the complainant online booked a European Dream Group Tour 2016-2017 from Opposite Party  in the name of complainant and her husband Parshant Arora and in this regard, she made a payment of Rs.2,63,320/- to Opposite Party in various installments. Said payment was made by the complainant as per the settlement arrived at between the complainant and Opposite Party, hence the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party and the complainant falls under the definition of consumer. On 13.9.2016, the complainant received an e-mail from the Opposite Party in which they sent booking confirmation details of the said European Dream Group Tour 2016-2017 package. As per the terms and conditions of the tour package, all the formalities with regard to filing of visa application and for getting of the visa and tour manage of the complainant and her husband will be completed by the Opposite Party. The complainant provided all the necessary documents as well as information alongwith passports to the Opposite Party regarding this tour package and for visa formalities as demanded by the Opposite Party. Thereafter, the complainant astonished to receive a letter dated 10.10.2016 from the French Embassy of the France, Office at New Delhi, regarding refusal of visa. In the said refusal letter in which specifically marked at Serial no.8 for declining the visa. It has been written in said para No.8 as ‘that the information submitted regarding jurisdiction for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable.” There is gross negligence on the part of the Visa Expert as well as Tour Expert of the Opposite Party for not providing proper information at the time of filing visa application to the Embassy for visa which is gross  negligence on the part of the Opposite Party which shows the deficiency in service as they failed to get visa for the complainant after getting a huge amount from the complainant for the tour package. The complainant became annoyed after receiving the said refusal letter and she immediately made a request to the Opposite Party for refund of the amount of the tour package of the complainant and the Opposite Party has failed to provide the tour package and visa for the complainant and on the request of the complainant, the Opposite Party  sent an e-mail dated 25.10.2016 to the complainant in which they have mentioned that they will refund an amount of Rs.1,03,321/- to the complainant within 7 days  which the complainant received lateron. Thereafter, the complainant on 26.10.2016 through an e-mail requested the Opposite Party to refund the total balance amount of the tour package as the tour package and visa has not been provided to the complainant due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party gave a reply through e-mail dated 27.10.2016 in which they have refused to pay back the remaining amount of the tour package.  In this way, the complainant has suffered immense mental agony, physical and mental pain, harassment, torture and humiliation, insult and embarrassment, which was absolutely, uncalled for, besides causing the complainant an unnecessary financial loss.   Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To refund the remaining amount of Rs.1,59,999/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment till the actual realization of the said amount.

b)      To pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental torture, harassment and stress caused to the complainant, for no fault on his part and in this respect complaint ma be accepted with costs.

c)       Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to kindly also be granted.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either on merits or as per the law and is liable to be out rightly dismissed; that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on mere conjectures and surmises; that the complainant and Opposite Party to the present case are governed by terms and conditions available online in the User Agreement.  In fact, the complainant contacted Opposite Party in the month of September, 2016 and out of all the various packages available online, booked the trip inscribed in the name and style of European Bonanza Package by paying an advance amount of Rs.5,000/-. Thereafter, a booking confirmation was shared with the complainant mentioning the itinerary and the visa requirements and terms and conditions applicable vide e-mail dated 13.9.2016 and also explained all the documents required  for visa processing to the complainant on every call as and when made by her. The relevant extract of the terms and conditions of the booking and cancellation policy as mentioned in the booking confirmation e-mailed to the customer are reiterated in para No.7 of the preliminary objections in the written reply.  It is pertinent to mention over here that Visa Disclaimer was also shared with the complainant reminding about the documents that were to be provided by the complainant towards her Visa processing vide e-mail dated 21.9.2016. However, the first set of visa documents were provided to the Opposite Party only on 23.09.2016. It is submitted that after duly examining the documents sent  by the complainant to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party immediately informed the complainant vide e-mail dated 26.9.2016 that the set of the documents provided by the complainant were incomplete and hence categorically made the complainant aware about the pending requisite documents that were to be provided at her end to the Opposite Party to initiate visa processing. Thereafter, on 30.9.2016, the second set of documents was provided to the Opposite Party by the complainant, however not in the format as was  advised to the complainant by the Opposite Party. Resultantly, there was a delay in submitting the documents in correct format by the complainant. Accordingly, on receipt of all the required/ corrected documents i.e. on completion of all the formalities by the complainant, the visa was duly applied by the Opposite Party. It is further pertinent to note that the final documents that were supplied by the complainant were weak for applying the visa and the same was specifically informed to the complainant well in advance i.e. before  applying the visa. However, despite being informed about the weak documents that were supplied, the complainant gave a go ahead with the bookings. On 1.10.2016, the Opposite Party on receiving the payment to the tune of Rs.1,31,000/- again shared the booking confirmation with the complainant vide email, acknowledging the payment of Rs.1,31,000/- and also giving all the booking details inter alia itinerary as well as terms and conditions. The complainant was categorically made aware that in case the trip is cancelled within 20 days of departure on account of whatever reasons,  be it on account of non procurement of visa, the entire Holiday cost i.e. Rs.2,63,320/- would be subject to forfeiture.  The date of travelling was fixed to be on 21.10.2016, but the visa was rejected by the French Embassy stating the reasons of rejection. The Opposite Party has no authority/ role howsoever in granting  or refusing the visa. At the time when the visa was rejected it was already under non refundable clause, and hence complainant was not eligible for any refund. On merits, the Opposite Party took the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.                      Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2   to Ex.C18  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Ankita Mehra, Assistant Manager Legal Ex.OPW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPW/A to Ex.OPW/G  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments made by the complainant in his complaint and contended that before her marriage which was solemnized on 14.10.2016 the complainant online booked a European Dream Group Tour 2016-2017 from Opposite Party  in the name of complainant and her husband Parshant Arora and in this regard, she made a payment of Rs.2,63,320/- to Opposite Party in various installments. Said payment was made by the complainant as per the settlement arrived at between the complainant and Opposite Party, hence the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party and the complainant falls under the definition of consumer. On 13.9.2016, the complainant received an e-mail from the Opposite Party in which they sent booking confirmation details of the said European Dream Group Tour 2016-2017 package. As per the terms and conditions of the tour package, all the formalities with regard to filing of visa application and for getting of the visa and tour manage of the complainant and her husband will be completed by the Opposite Party. The complainant provided all the necessary documents as well as information alongwith passports to the Opposite Party regarding this tour package and for visa formalities as demanded by the Opposite Party. Thereafter, the complainant astonished to receive a letter dated 10.10.2016 from the French Embassy of the France, Office at New Delhi, regarding refusal of visa. In the said refusal letter in which specifically marked at Serial no.8 for declining the visa. It has been written in said para No.8 as ‘that the information submitted regarding jurisdiction for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable.” There is gross  negligence on the part of the Visa Expert as well as Tour Expert fo the Opposite Party for not providing proper information at the time of filing visa application to the Embassy for visa which is gross  negligence on the part of the Opposite Party which shows the deficiency in service as they failed to get visa for the complainant after getting a huge amount from the complainant for the tour package. The complainant became annoyed after receiving the said refusal letter and she immediately made a request to the Opposite Party for refund of the amount of the tour package of the complainant and the Opposite Party has failed to provide the tour package and visa for the complainant and on the request of the complainant, the Opposite Party  sent an e-mail dated 25.10.2016 to the complainant in which they have mentioned that they will refund an amount of Rs.1,03,321/- to the complainant within 7 days  which the complainant received lateron. Thereafter, the complainant on 26.10.2016 through an e-mail requested the Opposite Party to refund the total balance amount of the tour package as the tour package and visa has not been provided to the complainant due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party gave a reply through e-mail dated 27.10.2016 in which they have refused to pay back the remaining amount of the tour package.  In this way, the complainant has suffered immense mental agony, physical and mental pain, harassment, torture and humiliation, insult and embarrassment, which was absolutely, uncalled for, besides causing the complainant an unnecessary financial loss.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complainant contacted Opposite Party in the month of September, 2016 and out of all the various packages available online, booked the trip inscribed in the name and style of European Bonanza Package by paying an advance amount of Rs.5,000/-. Thereafter, a booking confirmation was shared with the complainant mentioning the itinerary and the visa requirements and terms and conditions applicable vide e-mail dated 13.9.2016 and also explained all the documents required  for visa processing to the complainant on every call as and when made by her. The relevant extract of the terms and conditions of the booking and cancellation policy as mentioned in the booking confirmation e-mailed to the customer are reiterated  in para No.7 of the preliminary objections in the written reply.  It is pertinent to mention over here that Visa Disclaimer was also shared with the complainant reminding about the documents that were to be provided by the complainant towards her Visa processing vide e-mail dated 21.9.2016. However, the first set of visa documents were provided to the Opposite Party only on 23.09.2016. It is submitted that after duly examining the documents sent  by the complainant to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party immediately informed the complainant vide e-mail dated 26.9.2016 that the set of the documents provided by the complainant were incomplete and hence categorically made the complainant aware about the pending requisite documents that were to be provided at her end to the Opposite Party to initiate visa processing. Thereafter, on 30.9.2016, the second set of documents was provided to the Opposite Party by the complainant, however not in the format as was  advised to the complainant by the Opposite Party. Resultantly, there was a delay in submitting the documents in correct format by the complainant. Accordingly, on receipt of all the required/ corrected documents i.e. on completion of all the formalities by the complainant, the visa was duly applied by the Opposite Party. It is further pertinent to note that the final documents that were supplied by the complainant were weak for applying the visa and the same was specifically informed to the complainant well in advance i.e. before  applying the visa. However, despite being informed about the weak documents that were supplied, the complainant gave a go ahead with the bookings. On 1.10.2016, the Opposite Party on receiving the payment to the tune of Rs.1,31,000/- again shared the booking confirmation with the complainant vide email, acknowledging the payment of Rs.1,31,000/- and also giving all the booking details inter alia itinerary as well as terms and conditions. The complainant was categorically made aware that in case the trip is cancelled within 20 days of departure on account of whatever reasons,  be it on account of non procurement of visa, the entire Holiday cost i.e. Rs.2,63,320/- would be subject to forfeiture.  The date of travelling was fixed to be on 21.10.2016, but the visa was rejected by the French Embassy stating the reasons of rejection. The Opposite Party has no authority/ role howsoever in granting  or refusing the visa. At the time when the visa was rejected it was already under non refundable clause, and hence complainant was not eligible for any refund.

8.       It is not the denial of the case of the parties that  the complainant  booked the trip inscribed in the name and style of European Bonanza Package by paying an advance amount of Rs.5,000/-, copy of the acknowledgement accounts for Ex.C3. The booking of European Dream Group Tour 2016-2017 of the complainant and her husband was confirmed vide booking confirmation Ex.C5 and in this booking confirmation the total package price of Rs.2,63,320/- is admittedly mentioned therein. Thereafter, the Opposite Party also acknowledged the payment of Rs.49,000/- for Makemytrip booking and referring the outstanding amount of Rs.2,09,321/- vide e-mail dated September 14, 2016 duly addressed to the complainant. Thereafter, the Opposite Party also acknowledged the further payment of Rs.49,000/- vide email Ex.C7.  Not only this, the Opposite Party also acknowledged the further payment of Rs.28,000/- vide email Ex.C8.  Thereafter, the Opposite Party also acknowledged the further payment of Rs.32,321/- vide email Ex.C10. Thereafter, the Opposite Party also acknowledged the further payment of Rs.50,000/- vide email Ex.C11. In this way, the complainant has made the full payment to the Opposite Party regarding the aforesaid  European Dream Group Tour 2016-2017 of the complainant and her husband and in this letter, the Opposite Party also mentioned the current outstanding amount as Rs.O.   In this way, the complainant has  made a payment of Rs.2,63,320/- to Opposite Party in various installments and the said payment was made by the complainant as per the settlement arrived at between the complainant and Opposite Party, hence the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party and the complainant falls under the definition of consumer. But however, after receiving the full payment from the complainant the Opposite Party has failed to arrange the aforesaid  European Dream Group Tour 2016-2017 of the complainant and her husband mentioning that the information submitted regarding the jurisdiction for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable.  But it is the duty of the Opposite Party to get complete all the formalities well within time and before receiving the full payment from the complainant. The Opposite Party has submitted that the complainant has failed to fulfil the terms and conditions of the aforesaid tour package, but it is upon the Opposite Party to get complete the requisite and correct information/ formalities before receiving the payment from the complainant. But however, the Opposite Party has refunded the  amount of Rs.1,03,321/- to the complainant, but they have withheld the remaining amount of the complainant for the reasons best known to them.  It is the duty of the Opposite Party to keep the arrange of the complainant for the aforesaid tour package  because they have already received the full and final payment from the complainant and at the fag end of the tour package date, they have refused to even refund the remaining amount or  to keep another arrangement for the tour program of the complainant and her husband. Due to cancellation of the  tour programe of newly wedded couple, the complainant and her husband must have suffered mental tension and harassment in the hands of the Opposite Party. Hence, there is certainly a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party because they kept the complainant in dark by receiving the hefty amount from the complainant.  In such a situation, the Opposite Party is liable to refund the remaining amount alongwith interest.  

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Opposite Party to  refund the remaining amount of Rs.1,59,999/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of payment till the actual realization of the said amount .  The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation for causing her mental tension and harassment besides Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum.    Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.