Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/55/2020

Anil Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sidharth Grover & Sukhmani Kaur

18 Jun 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/55/2020
Date of Institution	:	29/01/2020
Date of Decision	:	18/06/2021

 

1.      Anil Grover S/o Late Sh. Laxmi Narayan, R/o H.No.1254, Progressive Enclave Society, Sector 50-B, Chandigarh.

 

2.      Neelam Grover W/o Sh. Anil Grover, R/o H.No.1254, Progressive Enclave Society, Sector 50-B, Chandigarh.

 

…..Complainants

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      MakeMyTrip India Private Limited, through its Managing Director/Director, DLF Building No.5, Tower-B, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-2, Sector 25, Gurugram, Haryana – 122002.

 

2.      MakeMyTrip India Private Limited, through its Manager/ Authorized Representative, Branch Office: SCO 169-170, 1^st Floor, Madhya Marg, Near Sindhi Sweets, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, U.T. – 160018.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sidharth Grover, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Gaurav Rana, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         The facts, in brief, are, on 21.10.2018, the Complainants approached Opposite Party No.1 for booking an International Holiday Package to Dubai, U.A.E. from 02.12.2018 to 07.12.2018 (5 nights and 6 days). Thereafter, the Complainants selected the desired package as offered by Opposite Party No.1 and confirmed the booking on 21.10.2018 vide booking ID NL2206391536244. The total amount for the Holiday Package was `1,28,682/- and initial payment of `43,000/-was made by the Complainants towards the booking amount on 21.10.2018 itself. Consequently on receiving the booking amount, a confirmation voucher alongwith details of the Holiday Package were sent by Opposite Party No.1 on 21.01.2018. Since the Complainants were travelling to Dubai, U.A.E, a Tourist Visa was required and therefore, visa applications were processed through Opposite Party No.1. The Holiday Package also included the visa processing fees. On 23.10.2018, Opposite Party No.1 requested the Complainants to provide all the necessary documents required for visa applications. Consequently on 24.10.2018, the Complainants supplied all necessary documents to Opposite Party No.1 for visa applications where-after Opposite Party No.1 acknowledged receiving the documents and informed the Complainants that Opposite Party No.1 will apply for visa only one month prior to the date of departure i.e. on 02.11.2018. On 13.11.2018, Opposite Party No.1 informed Complainant No.1 that his visa application has been rejected by the Immigration Security, however visa application of Complainant No.2 was accepted. Thereafter on 14.11.2018, Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainants that they will again apply for visa application of Complainant No.1 before the Embassy and in pursuant thereto sought scanned copies of all the pages of passport of Complainant No.1, which were sent by him on the same date itself. In the interregnum on 17.11.2018, the Complainant paid `1832/- more towards the booking amount as requested by Opposite Party No.1. Thereafter, again on 20.11.2018, Complainants paid `10,000/- more towards the booking amount on the insistence of representative of Opposite Party No.1 who called and sent an email to the Complainants informing them that they need to pay `10,000/- more so that Opposite Party No.1 can hold the booking till 23.11.2018. Shortly before the payment of `10,000/- could be made, Opposite Party No.1 called again and informed that visa application of Complainant No.1 has been rejected again. The Complainants immediately requested Opposite Party No.1 to cancel the booking and refund the booking amount of `44,835/-. However, Opposite Party No.1, without any reasonable cause or reason denied any refund to the Complainants. Soon after, the Complainants received a communication dated 20.11.2018 from Opposite Party No.1 informing that as per their conversation, they were cancelling the booking. Thereafter, on 20.11.2018, a communication was sent by Opposite Party No.1 that the visa application of Complainant No.1 has been rejected again, a fact which was already intimated by Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainants telephonically and subsequently by email on 20.11.2018. The Complainants time and again approached Opposite Party No.1 for refund of `44,835/-, but to no avail. Eventually, a legal notice dated 12.08.2018 was also served upon the Opposite Parties, but the same failed to fructify. Hence, this Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties contested the complaint and filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. Opposite Parties have taken preliminary objections that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the present Complaint, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint and Complainant is not consumer of Opposite Party. On merits, it has been pleaded that the Opposite Party merely facilitates in confirmation of the booking and shall have no obligation or liability towards the services provided by the concerned service providers. The Complainant had approached the Opposite Party for availing booking the said Tour Package from Delhi to Dubai and back to Delhi, for which the Opposite Party had duly issued confirmed flight tickets, hotel vouchers. It has been asserted being aggrieved by the rejection of visa on behalf of the concerned UAE embassy; the Complainants have filed the present Complaint.  The Opposite Party in a benevolent manner duly assisted the Complainants in filing the visa application with the concerned UAE embassy in India. However, the Opposite Party has no authority or control over the issuance or rejection of the Visa application, the same is the sole prerogative of the concerned embassy and Opposite Party has no involvement in the same. However, being a consumer centric company, the Opposite Party advised the Complainants to reapply for the Visa and also make the balance payment towards the Tour Package as per the booking policy shared with them along with the itinerary. However, the Complainants made a payment of `1835/- only for the reasons best known to them. The Complainants were time and again reminded to make the balance payment of `21,341/-, however, they miserably failed to do so. Thereafter, the Complainants despite being aware of the cancellation policy shared by the Opposite Parties, instructed the Opposite Parties to cancel the booking and asked for refund of `44,835/- despite being aware that the same stood forfeited as per the cancellation policy.   Thus, pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.
5.          The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties.
7.         First coming to the objection regarding cause of action, the same needs rejection for the simple reason that the material available on record shows the unprofessional conduct of the Opposite Parties by not applying for visa well within time and charging the Complainants `44,835/- for the tour package. Further perusal of the record shows that the vouchers/tickets have been issued by the Opposite Parties and the payment towards the said booking was received by the Opposite Parties themselves. Thus, the Complainant has cause of action to file the present lis against the Opposite Parties. 
8.         Now, we advert to the second objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The Opposite Parties contended that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present Complaint. In our opinion, the same needs its rejection in view of the fact that the Complainants are residents of Chandigarh and bookings were made by them at Chandigarh. The payment of `44,835/- for the tour package was made at Chandigarh. Also, the Opposite Parties have their Branch Office situated in Chandigarh and are running business and managing day-to-day affairs through Opposite Party No.2 at Chandigarh. Therefore, this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present Complaint.
9.         The third objection raised by the Opposite Parties is that the Complainants are not their consumers. Per material on record, we feel that this objection also needs its rejection. Perusal of the record shows that the Complainants availed the services of the Opposite Parties for an International Holiday Package to Dubai, UAE from 02.12.2018 to 07.12.2018. In this regard, payment of `44,835/- was paid by the Complainants to the Opposite Parties and as a consequence, confirmed holiday voucher Annexure C-1 was issued by the Opposite Parties in favour of the Complainants. Further, the Opposite Parties have themselves admitted that the amount received by them at the time of booking was utilized towards booking the Hotel, Airlines and other services. Thus, the Complainants are consumers, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.  
10.         There is no dispute regarding booking of international holiday package to Dubai and payment of `44,835 by the Complainants towards booking amount (Annexures C-1, C-2 and C-5). The Complainants cancelled the booking on 20.11.2018 solely on account of the Visa rejection, without which the trip was not possible.
11.         Per contra, the Opposite Parties have maintained that they have no liability qua the issuance or rejection of the visa application and that the booking amount of `44,835/- was forfeited as per the cancellation policy.  As against it, Ld. Counsel for the Complainants submitted that the Opposite Parties have indulged in unfair trade practice, by illegally forfeiting the entire amount paid by the complainants.
12.         Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties maintained that the Complainant was duly informed that the first payment done will be forfeited upon cancellation done 31 days or more prior to the departure. Therefore, the first payment of `44,000/- along with `1,1815/- was completely forfeited against the losses borne by the Opposite Parties for bookings made for the Complainant. Admittedly, the booking was cancelled on 20.11.2018 i.e. 12 days prior to the date of departure i.e. 02.12.2018. However, there is nothing to record to substantiate that the Opposite Parties have actually paid the amount to their respective vendors for Hotel booking as well as Air Fare, in the absence of which, the forfeited amount paid by the Complainants are liable to be refunded to them. One thing is very much clear that the trip was purely dependent on the issuance of Visa which was to be applied by the Opposite Parties.  Thus, it was the responsibility of the Opposite Parties to make fully-refundable bookings and apply for the visa on time to ensure that the complainants did not suffer any financial loss because of Visa rejection. 
13.         There is no denying the fact that the complainants had to cancel the booking on account of the Visa rejection, without which the trip was not possible at all. In this view of the matter, we feel that the Opposite Parties being a giant travel company needs to design their package and refund policy better, keeping in mind the visa processing time and the possibility of a rejection. 
14.         At any rate, the Opposite Parties blatantly ignored the fact that the whole trip is dependent on a visa. The complainants should not be penalised if the trip was cancelled solely on account of visa rejection which was a pre-requisite for the complainants to travel. The complainants, as consumers trusted Opposite Parties with all the bookings and did not really have a choice in accepting the terms and conditions because a visa was required to travel to Dubai and the holiday package states that the Visa is included. The Opposite Parties had industry expertise, connections and time to make non-refundable bookings, thereby, avoiding any financial loss except the non-refundable visa fee, which they failed to do and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainants. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties.
15.         For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

[a]    To refund an amount of `44,835/- to the Complainants along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of payment.

[b]    To pay `10,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainants; 

[c]    To pay `7,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

16.         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. on the amount mentioned at Sr. No.(a) from the date of payment till realization and also to pay interest @12% p.a. on the compensation amounts mentioned at Sr. No.(b) from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(c) above.
17.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

	Sd/-		Sd/-
18/06/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]		[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member		Presiding Member
“Dutt”