BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 451/2003 Filed on 13.11.2003

Dated : 30.11.2009

Complainant:

Dr. Kalavathy, W/o S.K. Vijayasankar, Opp: Collectorate, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. G. Venugopal)

Opposite parties:

1. Riya Travels and Tours (P) Ltd., Samariyas Buildings, PMG Junction, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Manager.

    

2. The Manager, Riya Travels and Tours (P) Ltd., Samariyas Buildings, PMG Junction, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

(By adv. P. Krishnankutty Nair)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 20.12.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30.10.2009, the Forum on 30.11.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

The allegations in the complaint are the following: The complainant who is a M.C. Lecturer in Cancer Epidemiology of the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram had to attend a post graduate course in chronic disease held by World Health Organisation and Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research in Geneva from 01.03.2003 to 12.04.2003. Complainant approached the reception staff of the 1^st opposite party to know about the services available there, for her proposed journey for the said course. The reception staff directed the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party after verifying the passport of the complainant and the call letter to attend the said course had advised her that it is a complicated task for her to arrange the air tickets and other required travel documents including visa by herself and suggested to leave all those burden to the 1^st opposite party company which is efficient and well experienced in providing such services on reasonable service charges. Accordingly as demanded the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 42,845/- to the 2^nd opposite party towards the ticket fare, Rs. 37,845/- and Rs. 5,000/- as the service charges for providing the air tickets for onward and downward journeys and all the required travel documents including the visa. On 27.02.2003 using the said air tickets, the complainant had started from Trivandrum by Indian Airlines flight and reached by 5.30 p.m on the same day at Mumbai Airport. On the next day at 2.30 a.m she proceeded by Delta Airlines and reached Paris Airport at 7.45 a.m. At Paris Airport, the complainant was not allowed to board on the Aircraft to Geneva for the reason that Schengen visa which is essential for the trip from Paris to Geneva was not included in her travel documents which were provided by the 2^nd opposite party. After being detained at Paris Airport for the non-availability of Schengen Visa, she was allowed to fly to Zurich. She reached Geneva two hours late from the scheduled time. Since the complainant was not found arrived by the Paris-Geneva flight, the persons who waited at Geneva Airport to receive her had left from there under the impression that she would not arrive there on that day. So the complainant was put to embarrassment when she arrived Geneva late by two hours by a different flight than that was scheduled. She had also to wait at Geneva Airport till next day for getting her luggage. Further she had to face untold difficulties and hardships to find her destination in Geneva without any help from anybody. The above said acts and omissions on the part of the opposite party amount to negligence and deficiency in service and it had resulted in putting the complainant in grave mental agony, troubles, untold difficulties, hardships and unnecessary expenditure for which this complaint has been necessitated.

The opposite parties in their version contend as follows: These opposite parties are accredited IATA agent for sale of Air Ticket to the travellers based on the true and correct travel documents of the passengers. The travel document includes visa issued by the competent authority, empowering, authorising the passenger to travel to the country to which the passenger is allowed for a specific purpose and for a definite period. It is the onus of the passenger to arrange for visa from the country to where the passenger proposes to travel. This opposite party did not arrange for visa or any travel documents for the complainant. As requested, the complainant was issued with Air ticket on receipt of consideration and on production of valid visa obtained by the complainant. The averments that the complainant approached the receptionist of the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party was directed to answer about the services available to the complainant for the proposed journey is a new invention. Never any of the officials of the opposite parties assured or promised to obtain travel documents or visa for the complainant. The complainant paid only exact air freight of Rs. 37,845/- for purchase of tickets. No additional fee was paid by the complainant. In para 5 the complainant stated having paid Rs. 5,000/- as additional fee for the purpose of obtaining travel documents is denied. The complainant obtained only Swiss visa and she knew very well on getting the ticket from this opposite party that she would be allowed to travel from Trivandrum to Mumbai, Mumbai to Paris and Paris to Geneva and back by Indian Airlines, Air India and Delta Airlines Corporation. The air fare of Rs. 37,845/- was paid by the complainant only for the travel by these airlines and the route specified in the air tickets. Schengen visa should have been obtained by the complainant before purchase of air ticket and commencement of journey. Regarding late arrival or as to delay in clearance of luggage etc. are matters confined with the Airlines and Airport Authority to whom these respondents have no control and not answerable. It is the duty of the traveller to obtain visa and not the duty of Airlines or this opposite parties to obtain visa. In the issue of Air tickets for the price paid by the complainant there is no deficiency of service as the complainant utilised the air ticket for the journey by the Airlines mentioned in the air ticket. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

Complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts P1 to P11. Exts. D1 &D2 were marked on the part of the opposite parties.

On the basis of the contentions raised, following issues arise for consideration:

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

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?

Points (i) & (ii):- The main aspect to be considered is whether the complainant has been issued with a visa by the opposite parties and if it is in affirmative whether the one issued is a proper one. The complainant herself has admitted that she had gone to attend World Health Organisation’s short term course for 45 days which has been sponsored by World Health Organisation and Geneva foundation. Admittedly she has travelled to foreign countries before also. Moreover she has admitted that air tickets will be issued only if visa is there and she got the ticket after getting visa. PW1 has deposed that “visa കിട്ടിയത് travel agent വഴിയാണ്, visa issue ചെയ്യുന്നത് അതാത് Government വഴിയാണ്. അല്ലെങ്കില്‍ sponsor ആണ്. WHO യുടെയോ Geneva Foundation-ന്‍റേയോ sponsorship letter ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ടോ (Q) ഇല്ല (A) Sponsor visa issue ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ല. എനിക്ക് വന്ന call letter travel agent-നെ ഏല്‍പ്പിച്ചു. അതിന്‍റെ copy യുണ്ടോ എന്ന് നോക്കിയാലേ അറിയൂ. Call letter-ല്‍ visa-യുടെ കാര്യം പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല എന്ന് suit notice-ലോ complaint-ലോ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല(Q) ഇല്ല (A)”.

We have gone through the records produced by the complainant and the opposite parties. Though the complainant has pleaded that she had gone to Geneva to attend the said course, it is not supported by any evidence. Besides this, the pleading in the complaint that she was not allowed to board the air craft at Geneva at Paris airport for the reason that Schengen visa, which was an essential document was not included in the travel documents, has not been proved by the complainant. There is no document to substantiate the said contention. There is no evidence in support of the pleading that the complainant has been detained in the Paris airport due to want of Schengen visa.

In the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against the opposite parties with cogent evidence. Hence the complainant is not found entitled for any reliefs claimed and the complaint is only to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of November 2009.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

jb BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

O.P. No. 451/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS :

PW1 - Kalavathy

II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of air ticket Tvpm to Mumbai dated 27.02.2003.

P2 - Photocopy of Boarding Card dated February 28^th.

P3 - Photocopy of air ticket Paris to Zurich dated 28^th February

P4 - Photocopy of air ticket Zurich to Geneva dated 28^th

February.

P5 - Photocopy of train ticket Geneva to Zurich dated 10.04.03.

P6 - Photocopy of air ticket Zurich to Paris dated 11^th April.

P7 - Photocopy of air ticket Paris to Mumbai dated 11^th April.

P8 - Photocopy of air ticket Mumbai to Tvpm dated 12^th April.

P9 - Photocopy of air ticket Tvpm to Geneva.

P10 - Photocopy of air ticket Geneva to Thiruvananthapuram.

P11 - Photocopy of Switzerland visa dated 28.02.2003.

III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Legal notice issued to opposite by complainant.

D2 - Photocopy of reply notice issued to the complainant by the opposite party.

PRESIDENT