Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

                    (3)     Anil Kumar Singh

                              Member

Date of Order : 17.07.2018

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,03,540/- deposited by complainant.
2. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 400/- as court fee.
3. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 2,700/- as legal fee.
4. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 24,305/- incurred on air ticket and VISA fees.
5. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- as other expenses.
6. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental agony.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PVT. LTD. is engaged in the business of planning and arranging holiday/vacation trips for the customers in India and overseas. For the same opposite party takes charges. This service includes Air Ticket/ Hotel Booking at the destination of travel as well as of assisting customers in completing VISA formalities as well as follow up action which includes information to the customers with regard to status of VISA Application. The opposite party had assured the complainant that his entire holiday package will be conducted without any obstruction.

The complainant has further asserted that he deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,03,540/- online through credit card to MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PVT. LTD. through its travel website Makemytrip India.com against booking ID NL 20824447034 for his honeymoon trip to EASTERN EUROPE with scheduled departure on 06.06.2017. The aforesaid payment was done in two parts. The trip was planed three months in advance and first payment was made before the schedule departure as per request of opposite party. The complainant followed all guidelines and procedure as advised by the opposite party for VISA application formalities. All the application was completed by Mr. Arko Provo Basu of VISA support team of the service provider MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PVT. LTD. and was submitted at VFS Global office on 19^th April in Kolkatta. VFS Global is an outsourced agency, which scrutinizes application and takes VISA interview for different embassies.

The grievance of the complainant is that due to poor services and negligence of opposite party the complainant could not go on honeymoon trips because VISA application of the complainant and his wife was declined by the embassy of HUNGARY with a reason “THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED REGARDING THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PURPOSE AND CONDITIONS OF THE INTENDED STAY WAS NOT RELIABLE” which clearly means that the place of stay or hotel bookings was not confirmed to the satisfaction of embassy authorities.

The complainant has asserted that the hotel could not be booked by the opposite party was due to the fact that the employee of opposite party no. 1 did not process it due to their casual lethargic attitude. The complainant came to know about the aforesaid fact on 22^nd May and as such he could not make any alternative arrangement.

It has been further asserted that between 2^nd May and 13^th may the service provider took an additional payment of Rs. 61,540/- from the complainant and despite that his VISA was rejected on 4^th May and complainant could not travel to EUROPE. The complainant had to forgo Rs. 11,977/- on ticket cancellation from Patna to Delhi which was booked to catch flight from Delhi to Vienna.

The complainant has alleged that the aforesaid trip as well as loss of money was caused due to negligence and fraud of the opposite party.

On behalf of opposite party written statement has been filed denying all the allegation leveled by the complainant.

It has been further asserted that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint because VISA application has been rejected at Kolkatta.

In Para- 2 of written statement the following fact has been asserted by opposite party, “as regards to the averments made at Para – 2 of the complaint, it may be clarified that answering opposite party is not responsible for visa formalities of the customers and the same was also clarified to the complainant at the time of booking in the user agreement. The answering opposite party relies on the clause “VISA OBLIGATION OF THE USER” which clearly mentions that, “the travel booking done by MMT ar subject to the applicable requirements of visa which are to be obtained by the individual traveler. MMT is not responsible for any issues, including inability by the travel, arising out of such visa requirements and is also not liable to refund for the untraveled booking due to any such reason.” A copy of the user agreement is marked herewith as annexure – B. Thus, it is apparent that the complainant at the time of booking of the package was well aware of the fact that visa was to be obtained by him only and the answering opposite party will only assist him in the visa process and thus, cannot be held responsible for rejection of the visa which is the sole prerogative of the concerned embassy.”

The opposite party has further stated that the complainant was informed at the beginning that in the case of VISA being rejected the refund will be initiated as per cancellation policy but the opposite party treated the booking as a special case a gesture of goodwill only charged advanced amount of Rs. 1,03,540/- as penalty and bear loss of rest amount while the fact is that as per cancellation of policy the complainant’s booking was falling under 80% penalty.

On behalf of complainant a rejoinder (reply) has been filed stating therein that as the booking was done online by complainant with opposite party from Patna hence this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Replying the fact asserted by the opposite party in Para – 1 of the Para wise reply of the written statement, the complainant has made following averments, “in this case as already informed to the Hon’ble Court VISA was denied because the Hotel Booking were not provided to the embassy. These hotel bookings were to be done by the opposite party for which the complainant had already paid in advance to the opposition party. Complainant is amazed and shocked to see the kind of blame game being played by the opposite party on everyone, whether VFS global (an outsourced agency of security of VISA papers for embassies), to the embassy by telling that embassy provide standard reasons and last but not the least to the complainant who had paid his hard earned money to the opposite party for once in a life time tour of his honeymoon. While all the payments were made to the opposite party, in case of failed services the opposite party is blaming everyone except themselves. The Hon’ble Court should penalize the opposite party heavily for misguiding the Hon’ble Court.”

“here the complainant will like to bring to notice to the Hon’ble Court, a judgment of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab case between Davinder Singh Vs Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. on 2^nd may 2017 where in a similar reason that the embassy could not verify stay arrangement of the consumer and consumers VISA was rejected. The Hon’ble Court had penalized makemytrip for deficiency in its services. The same makemytrip is opposite party here in this case also.”

“reference to the same was published in Hindustan Times on June 18, 2015. (The same is attached – annexure – A).”

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is admitted fact that the complainant has made all transaction online from Patna hence this forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint petition.

It goes without saying that opposite party is engaged in business of planning and arranging holiday /vacation trip for the customers in India and overseas and facilitates customer in getting ticket, VISA etc. hence it is responsibility of opposite party for arranging the trip of the customers smoothly.

It is an admitted fact that VISAwas not given to the complainant on the ground that “the information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and condition of the intending stay was not reliable.” As per the complainant it was the duty of the opposite party to provide all the information to the embassy after taking the same from the complainant. The very reason of rejecting the VISA as stated above shows that opposite party was not able to provide the embassy of the Hungary the very purpose of the VISA and place of staying was not properly provided to the embassy due to which the VISA of the complainant was rejected.

It goes without saying that VISA application was processed by the agency which was outsourced by the opposite party hence the opposite party has to take the responsibility for the failure of outsource or agency which processed the VISA of the complainant.

The aforesaid conduct of the opposite party which has resulted in the cancellation of the Honeymoon trip of the complainant which clearly disclose deficiency on the part of opposite party.

For the reason stated above we direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,27,845/- ( Rs. One Lac Twenty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Five only) to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite party will pay 10% interest on above said amount of Rs. 1,27,845/- ( Rs. One Lac Twenty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Five only) till its final payment.

Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period given above.

Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.

                             Member                           Member (F)                           President