Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/158/2017

Vinod paul Tyagaraj David S/o.David Tyagaraj ,Veronica antony W/o.Vinod Paultyagaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Make My Trips India (P) LTD Represented by its chairman and CEO ,Make my Trip India represented b it - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.David Tyagaraj

21 Dec 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  03.11.2017

                                                                Order pronounced on:  21.12.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A.,  :        MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY THE 21^st  DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

 

C.C.NO.158/2017

 

1.Vinod Paul Tyagaraj David,

S/o David Tyagaraj,

38, First Street,

Gillnagar, Choolaimedu,

Chennai – 600 094.

 

2.Veronica Antony,

W/o Vinod Paul Tyagaraj David,

38, First Street,

Gillnagar, Choolaimedu,

Chennai – 600 094.

                                                                                    ….. Complainants

 

..Vs..

1.Make My Trip India private Ltd.,

Represented by its Chairman and CEO,

DLF Building No. 5 Tower C,

DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2

Sector 25, Gurugaon, Haryana 122 002, India.

 

2.Make my Trip India Private Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

Branch Office, Door No. 10, 1^st Floor,

Khader Nawaz Khan Road,

Landmark – Opposite to Starbucks Coffee,

Chennai – 600 034.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of the complaint                                     : 07.11.2017

Counsel for  the Complainants                       : M/s.David Tyagaraj, D.Bennington,

                                                                    S.Manikkannan, P.S.Prem Kumar

 

Counsel for  the Opposite Parties             : S.Arun Kumar

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant  to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,19,200/-  with 18% interest  to till the date of realization for deficiency in service  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          Complainants availed an end-to-end holiday package through the opposite parties from Chennai to France and Switzerland from 14.01.2017 to 19.01.2017 through booking ID in 1610B7S2165948 (Swiss Paris Delight Group Tour 2016 -2017). The total cost of the tour package was Rs.2,23,589/- and paid an advance of Rs.45,000/- in tranches of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.5,000/- on 23.10.2016 and 24.10.2016 respectively, to the opposite parties for making the necessary arrangement for the aforesaid tour. As per the tour package the opposite parties also provided free visa assistance for the complainants, through its visa Care Team.  On 18.11.2016 the complainants have handed over the documents to Mr.Karthik who is working under the opposite parties at the Chennai branch office for visa scrutiny in accordance with the checklist provided by Visa Care Team of the opposite parties. Thereafter the second complainants had requested the opposite parties to organize for the visa interview as early as possible. The opposite parties had sent an e-mail on 10.12.2016  stating that due to lack of sufficient number of tourists for the group tour originally scheduled to depart on 14.01.2017, opposite parties intended to postpone the date of the said trip from 14.01.2017 to 21.01.2017, with the same package holding good, for which the complainants consented and they had handed over afresh all the documents to the opposite parties on 26.12.2016 as per the check list provided by the opposite parties at the Chennai branch office. The opposite parties had arranged the visa interview for the complainants on 03.01.2017.  The complainants went through the visa application process at VFS, Chennai including the submission of documents and biometric scan on the said day and paid a sum of Rs.14,200/- towards the visa processing on 03.01.2017. The complainants received visa refusal letter on 07.01.2017, and the reasons stated for refusal was improper documentation. The complainants enquired about the rejection  of the visa to the opposite parties, the opposite parties responded by stating that visa decision/outcome is always up to the consular and told the complainants to apply afresh, and stated that the further outcome with regard to the visa was not in the hands of the opposite parties. The complainants were constrained to cancel the trip on 07.01.2017 due to the irresponsible response by the opposite parties. The opposite parties had sent an e-mail on 09.01.2017 stating that the advance amount of Rs.45,000/- was non-refundable as the cancellation was made within 20 days before the trip which is arbitrary and illegal.  As per the travel itinerary  the flight ticket arranged by the opposite parties was Etihad Airlines from Chennai to Abu Dhabi, but on 01.01.2017 the opposite parties had sent an e-mail of Air India ticket from Chennai to Delhi which does not fom part of the package, with the subject line amendment in your travel itinerary’, which clearly shows that the opposite parties have not blocked any Etihad Air Tickets as claimed in the tour package. Due to the cancellation, complainants have suffered mental agony, distress and sustained monetary loss. The opposite parties are liable for Consumer deficiency in service.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          Admittedly, the subject matter of the present dispute is restricted to alleged inconvenience caused to the complainants due to the rejection of the visa of the complainants which is the sole discretion of the concerned embassy. The opposite parties have no control or say on the acts of the airlines or the embassies. The grievances of the complainants are limited to alleged inconvenience caused due to the rejection of visa of the complainants by the concerned embassy, and not on account of any service much less deficiency in service provided by the answering respondent. The opposite parties had clearly performed all its duties with due diligence. No fee was charged by the complainants for processing of visa  and therefore, cancellation or rejection of visa application cannot be termed as deficiency in service provided to the respondents by the complainant, the processing and filing of visa application was facilitation services for convenience of the respondents that was provided by the complainants free of cost and no assurances as to approval of the visa was ever given by the complainant. No cause of action arose in favour of the complainants to prefer the instant complaint. ‘User agreement, as applicable at the time of registration by the complainants on the website as a user that have been accepted by him/her, state that “the travel bookings done  by MMT are subject to the applicable requirements of visa which are to be obtained by the individual traveler issuance of visa can be rejected on any ground as the embassy deems fit and proper. Accordingly, make my trip was not held liable. The complainants was provided able and guided assistance by the opposite parties for booking and thereafter utilization of the said tour. The complaint pertain to the tour getting postponed from January 14, 2017 to January 22, 2017 which was duly informed to the complainants that due to unavailability of booking slots at the desired date of travel, the tour is  being postponed to next week. Since customer satisfaction is a priority for the answering respondent therefore, the opposite parties made the bookings for new dates and applied for the visas from the initial date and carried out all the required process for carrying out the same and duly informed the complainants that the tour has been postponed to new dates. As per the user agreement of the complainants which was shared with the complainants at the time of availing the package it was clearly stated that the absolute amount will be forefeited as per the cancellation charges in case of any cancellation for any reason whatsoever as the same are non refundable in nature.  It is germane to mention herein that the opposite parties did not charge any fee or additional amount towards submission of the visa application with the embassy on behalf of the complainants. The user agreement of the answering opposite parties that in the absence of Visa, which is a mandate for the tour package, the opposite parties had informed the complainants that 100% cancellation charges would be levied and applicable as per the cancellation schedule, which was already shared with the opposite parties at the time of booking of the tour package. The opposite parties confirmed the booking as per the pre-approved itinerary and separately, the complainants was informed about amongst others, the visa requirement for the said tour package, cancellation charges, etc. That, to facilitate the tour package and visa process, the answering respondent had requested the complainants to provide for certain documents as required by the embassy for issuance of visa. That, in the absence of visa, which is a mandate for the tour package, the petitioner informed the opposite parties that 100% cancellation charges would be levied and applicable as per the cancellation schedule, which was already shared with  the complainants at the time of booking of the tour package. Since the visa of the complainants was rejected, the tour was postponed to new dates to apply for fresh visa and the same was informed to the complainants. It is stated that nowhere as the complainants demonstrated, alleged and/or established any fact which points out to any act of deficiency in service by the opposite parties. Further, it is re-iterated that visa application is a facilitation service provided by the complainants free of cost and the approval and prays to dismiss the complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The complainants had availed  holiday package through the opposite parties from Chennai to France and Switzerland from 14.01.2017 to 19.01.2017  and the  total cost for the tour package was 2,23,589/- advance of Rs.45,000/- in tranches was paid on 23.10.2016 and 24.10.2016 respectively vide  receipts in Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. As per the tour package final confirmation mail in  Ex.A4 that the opposite parties provided free visa assistance through its visa care Team. As requested in Ex.A5  letter on 26.10.2016, the complainants have handed over the application form on 16.11.2016 vide Ex.A6 & Ex.A7. On 18.11.2016 both the complainants had handed over the documents to one Mr.Karthik, executive of visa  care Team of the opposite parties by hand delivery vide letter in Ex.A8. Opposite parties also received the same by acknowledging in the  letter itself.  Then the opposite parties had sent an e-mail on 10.12.2016 stating that due to lack  of sufficient number of tourists, the group tour originally scheduled to depart on 14.01.2017 is postponed to 21.01.2017, with the same package vide  email copy Ex.A9. Admittedly the complainants consented for the same. Ex.A10 is  no objection certificate for abroad travel  obtained from the senior manager of the 2^nd complainant. Ex.A11 is the  letter of request to the visa officer for issuing tourist visa for the complainants. Appointment letter is Ex.A12. As per Ex. A13 there is a change in the e-ticket and the departure city is changed from Chennai to Delhi, payment receipts are in Ex.A14. After the payment of visa charges of Rs.14,200/-on 3.01,2017, the  refusal/revocation of visa for  the following reasons are  stated  in Ex.A16 dated 7.01.2017. The reasons stated is as follows.

1. ‘The information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable.’
2. ‘Intention to leave the territory of member states before the expiry of the visa could not be ascertained.’ 

The complainants would contend that the trip was cancelled not because of the reason of the complainants,  opposite parties  had deliberately  postponed the trip in view of which the complainants had to produce a new set of  documents for the visa interview. Opposite parties  had arranged for flight ticket from Chennai to Abu Dhabi, but it is  changed from Chennai to Delhi, and the travel documents submitted  by the opposite parties  to embassy is not in order and the visa was rejected. Due to the submission  of improper documents and the terms and conditions of the tour package does not contemplate that in case of visa is rejected,  the amount paid towards the  tour package  should be forfeited . But when  the refund of the amount is sought by the complainants, it was refused. All  these difficulties happened due to deficiency in service, and the complainants suffered mental agony and sufferings.

        5.  Communications through mail are in Ex.15 to Ex.20.Representations were given by the complainants  to the Regional Director, India Tourism is Ex.A21 and the  reply is in Ex.A22. Opposite parties  reply is Ex.A23.Memorandum of Writ Petition copy is Ex.A24. Notice sent by the complainants to opposite parties  with acknowledgement is Ex.A25. I.T returns of the complainants are Ex.A26 & 27. Ex.A28 contains for conditions for Switzerland visa. The opposite parties   have filed written version but not filed proof affidavit and no documents are marked  on their side.

6. The complainants availed the tour package through the opposite parties  paid an advance amount of Rs.45,000/- and also paid Rs.14,200/- for visa applications  and the postponement of the tour  from 14.01.2017 to 21.01.2017 are not denied by the opposite parties. The complainants contends that the entire tour has been arranged by the opposite parties   and the documents pertaining the travel and stay was arranged by the opposite parties  but the opposite parties  protested saying that the processing of visa is a facilitation service for the convenience of its customer  and no assurances was given for the approval of visa.  The opposite parties  have arranged the tour for the complainants  and the package is fixed as Rs.2,23,589/- then becomes a service provider. While so, the complainants received e-mail in Ex.A9  due to low group strength for the arranged tour,  the tour fixed on 14.01.2017 was postponed to 21.01.2017. Even though the complainants have given consent, the postponement is  not due to the fault of the  complainants, it is only because of the opposite parties  not arranging the sufficient group strength for the tour as a result, the complainants was asked to submit the documents  in fresh for visa scrutiny  as the date of package was changed. The documents provided by the complainants was verified by the opposite parties and then submitted to the embassy. As per the travel itinerary the flight ticket arranged by the opposite parties  was from Chennai to Abu Dhabi as stated in Ex. A4, but e-mail was sent by the opposite parties  to the complainants in Ex.A13  the departure city was shown as Delhi instead of Chennai  as incorporated in Ex.A4.

7. This act of opposite parties  itself proves that they have not blocked the ticket as they have stated earlier and it is corrected by way of amendment in itinerary is not correct and it would have caused inconvenience to the complainants. The documents produced before this forum by the complainants prove that they have submitted the required documents  in time to the opposite parties  as per the check list provided by the opposite parties  and it is for the opposite parties   after scrutiny to submit it before the embassy in view of the tour package  arranged by the opposite parties  and the rejection is  due to improper submission of documents  given by the opposite parties. From the documents submitted by the complainants it is made clear that  the rejection was on 7.01.2017 and within 20 days of the scheduled trip , the paid amount need be returned to the complainants and it was refused as per records submitted  by the complainants which amounts to unfair trade practice and the opposite parties  have done deficiency in service as argued on the side of the complainants. Opposite parties  have not come forward to file any proof  affidavit  and documents on their side to disprove the case of the complainants or to prove the contents of the written version and  as such the claim of the complainants has to be accepted  as  proved . The opposite parties  are liable  for their unfair trade practice and also  deficiency in service.

08. POINT NO:2

          As per the observations made above, we are of view that the opposite parties  are  found deficient  in rendering proper service  to the complainants  and also liable for  indulging in unfair trade practice and to return the amount paid by the complainants. Under these circumstances, complainants suffering of mental agony and distress is accepted. Therefore the opposite parties  are directed to return the amount of booking and visa charges of  Rs. 45,000 +14,200 totally Rs.59,200/-with interest of  12% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till the date of payment  to the complainants and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and monetary loss  besides payment of Rs.5,000/- for costs.

           In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The  opposite parties  jointly or severally are ordered to pay  to the complainants a sum of Rs.59,200/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand and two hundred only) with interest @ 12% from the  date of filing the complaint till date of payment  and also to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for deficiency in service and mental agony besides a sum of  Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 21^st   day December 2018.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 18.04.2015	Copy of marriage certificate
Ex.A2 dated 23.10.2016	Copy of payment receipt
Ex.A3 dated 24.10.2016	Copy of payment receipt
Ex.A4 dated 24.10.2016	Copy of Tour Package
Ex.A5 dated 26.10.2016	Mail sent by the opposite parties for visa requirement
Ex.A6 dated 16.11.2016	Copy of application submitted for the visa by the first complainant
Ex.A7 dated 16.11.2016	Copy of application submitted for the visa by the 2nd complainant
Ex.A8 dated 18.11.2016	Letter sent by the 1st complainant
Ex.A9 dated 10.12.2016	Mail sent by the opposite party
Ex.A10 dated 16.12.2016	Copy of no objection issued by the Global Analytics
Ex.A11 dated 28.12.2016	Copy of covering letter to the visa officer
Ex.A12 dated 30.12.2016	Mail sent by the opposite party
Ex.A13 dated 02.01.2017	Copy of change of E-Ticket by the opposite party
Ex.A14 dated 03.01.2017	Copy of payment receipts issued by VFS Global Service
Ex.A15 dated 06.01.2017	Mail sent by the opposite party
Ex.A16 dated 06.01.2017	Refusal of the visa by the embassy of Switzerland, New Delhi for the 1st complainant
Ex.A17 dated 06.01.2017	Refusal of the visa by the embassy of Switzerland, New Delhi for the 2nd complainant
Ex.A18 dated 07.01.2017	Mail sent by the second complainant
Ex.A19 dated 07.01.2017	Mail sent by the opposite party to the second complainant
Ex.A20  dated 09.01.2017	Mail sent by the opposite party  for refusal of the advanced amount
Ex.A21 dated 21.01.2017	Representation sent by the 1st & 2nd complainant to the Regional Director (South), India Tourism along with the acknowledgement card
Ex.A22 dated 17.02.2017	Reply by the Regional Director (South), India Tourism along with covering letter
Ex.A23 dated 07.03.2017	Reply by the opposite parties
Ex.A24 dated 04.08.2017	Affidavit and Petition in W.P.No. 20795 of     2017
Ex.A25 dated 29.08.2017	Notice sent by the complainant along with acknowledgement
Ex.A26 dated 2014-2017	Copy of IT returns of the 1st complainant
Ex.A27 dated 2014- 2017	Copy of IT returns of the second complaint
Ex.A28 dated 02.11.2017	Copy of conditions for Switzerland visa

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT