The complainant’s case is that they proposed to go from India to Australia via Singapore in the last part of April 2013. They contacted OP to finalize the requirements. The total package cost communicated by the O.P. was Rs. 2,06,854/-out of which the complainants deposited Rs. 1,40,000/- for their tour. It is also stated in the complaint that on 30 the April 2013 one Jayeeta Choudhury of the OP no 2 intimated the complainants that any guest traveling with multiple entry Australian visa to Singapore will get an on arrival transit Singapore visa for 96 hrs  free of cost and as such on advice of OP no 2 the complainants, for Australia tour including Singapore package, deposited rest Rs. 66,854/- with the Axix Bank Purulia Branch on 04/05/2013. On receiving the same amount the OP/Travel agency booked ticket for the complainant which your issued on 30^th April 2013 mentioning the flight information in detail from Kolkata to Melbourne via Singapore and back. The OPs also supplied the itinerary in respect of Singapore tour package from 17^th June 2013 to 21^st June 2013 before their departure from Kolkata. The date of arrival of the complainants at Melbourne was 10^th May 2013 and departure from Melbourne 17^th June 2013 and on staying for 96 hrs at Singapore the date of arrival at Kolkata was 21^st June 2013.

While staying in Australia the said Jayeeta Choudhury by mail dated 27^th May 2013 intimated the complainants that they got information from their visa team that Singapore had withdrawn on arrival visa free for 96 hrs for passenger having Multiple Entry Australian Visa and for that reason Singapore visa is necessary. OP also stated that they can apply for Singapore visa on behalf of the complainant for which bank transfer INR Rs. 3500/- to the account of the travel agency was necessary. The complainant deposited the said amount onto the account of the travel agency in Axix Bank Purulia branch by cash. By mail dated 31^st May 2013 said Jayeeta Choudhury again requested the complainants to send one hard copy of complainants business details with letter head and clear printed hard copy of complainants photographs of specific size mentioned therein. Though such requirements was fulfilled by the complainant yet the said Jayeeta Choudhury by mail dated 6^th June, 2013 intimated the complainant sating that “Singapore consulate is not accepting the visa application as guest is already traveling and out of India.” Later by mail dated 11^th June 2013 O.P. No. 2 advised complainants for online visa with photocopies of passport from Melbourne itself.  As original passport was needed to be sent to the consulate office it was not possible for them at that moment as the return journey was scheduled on 17^th June 2013 from Australia. Under these circumstances the complainants were compelled to curtail their journey and return back to Kolkata on 18^th June 2013 instead of 21^st June 2013. After reaching Kolkata from Melbourne a sum of Rs. 63,615/- (sixty three thousand six hundred fifteen) refunded by the O.P. on 9/7/2013 without any discount though the O.Ps ab-initio committed to waive out 3.09% GST on land portion. Alleging negligence on the part of the O.Ps and for harassment and mental agony the complainants filed this case with a claim of interest on Rs. 63,615/-, the amount of discount @3.09% GST on land portion and compensation of Rs. 1 lakh each to the complainants and a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

O.P. in their written version denied the allegation made by the complainant. They have categorically stated that after complainants departure i.e. during mid of May 2013 the Singapore Immigration Department amended the Visa Free Transit Facility Rule (VFTF Rule) and made it as per discretion of the immigration officer. In view of the very short time available the O.P. immediately informed about this change of Rule to the complainants. However when the complainants himself could not arrange the visa from Australia for Singapore the O.P. after consulting with the complainants made arrangement to amend the air ticket. So O.P. prays for dismissal of the case as there is no negligence on the part of the O.P.

Now the main issues are whether there is any deficiency on the part of the O.P. and the complainants is entitled to relief/reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with reason:

Admittedly, the complainants besides the amount 1,40,000/- already paid deposited further Rs. 66,854/- in the A/c of O.P. for Australia tour including the cost of Singapore Tour Package (vide Annex 6) and received the air ticket on 30^th April 2013 mentioning the flight information in details from Kolkata to Melbourne via Singapore and back (vide Annex 7 and 8). Before their departure from Kolkata, O.P. supplied the itinerary in detail to the complainants in respect of Singapore tour package from 17^th June 2013 to 21^st June 2013 (Vide Annex 9). Ld advocate of the complainants draws our attention to Annex 4 which contains the following information sent by one Jayeeta Chowdhury on behalf of O.P. to the complainant that “we have checked with our Visa team and they have confirm us any guest traveling with multiple entry Australian Visa to Singapore will get an on arrival transit Singapore Visa for 96 hours at free of cost. The only documents required are – 1) Onwards ticket to further destination, i.e. in this case return ticket to India and 2) a multiple entry Australia visa. So it is not required to have a prior visa for Singapore.” But while complainants had been staying in Australia said Jayeeta Chowdhury by mail dated 27^th May 2013 intimated the complainants that they got information from their visa team that Singapore had withdrawn on arrival visa free for 96 hours for passengers having multiple entry Australian Visa and for that a Singapore visa is necessary before entering into Singapore.  OP also stated that they can apply for Singapore visa on behalf of the complainant for which bank transfer INR Rs. 3500/- to the account of the travel agency is necessary. The complainant deposited the said amount onto the account of the travel agency in Axix Bank Purulia branch by cash (vide Annex 10). By mail dated 31^st May 2013 said Jayeeta Choudhury again requested the complainants to send one hard copy of complainants business details with letter head and clear printed hard copy of complainants photographs of specific size mentioned therein (vide Annex 12). Though such requirements were fulfilled by the complainant yet the said Jayeeta Choudhury by mail dated 6^th June, 2013 intimated the complainant sating that “Singapore consulate is not accepting the visa application as guest is already traveling and out of India (vide Annex 13).” Later by mail dated 11^th June 2013 O.P. No. 2 advised complainants for online visa with photocopies of passport from Melbourne itself (vide Annex 16). By mail 9^th June 2013 the complainants intimated the said Jayeeta Chowdhury stating that as Singapore consulate is in Canberra and they are in Melbourne, the visa application was not possible for them from Melbourne in such a short period of time as consulate needs the original passport for verification.

We find from Annex 17 that visa on arrival in Singapore was no longer valid from atleast two years back but the O.P. has not controverted this allegation. Now the question arises then how and where from the travel agency got information that visa on arrival in Singapore was possible for Indian passport holders traveling from Australia. Though O.P. in the written argument has stated that after complainants departure from Kolkata to Melbourne on 09/05/2013 the Singapore Immigration Department amended the Visa Free Transit Facility Rule (VFTF Rule) and made it as per discretion of the immigration officer but no evidence in this regard has been placed before us to verify the statement. Though O.P. stated that they have refunded the balance amount of 63,615/- to the complainant for cancellation of tour of Singapore. Considering the documents placed before us and arguments advanced by the respective Ld Counsel we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as they without taking proper information, allured the complainants for Singapore visit by their imprudent act and so the sky high dream of the complainants shattered into pieces. Accordingly there is no escape from the conclusion that not only false information as regards the Singapore tour was communicated to the complainants but also debarred the complainants from Singapore tour by their negligent act.   

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get a decree in part as prayed for. These points are disposed of accordingly, Hence,

ORDERED

That the consumer complaint no. 33 of 2013 be and the same is allowed in part on contest.

The O.P. is directed to pay an amount of discount @ 3.09% GST on land portion and interest thereon @6% p.a. from 09/07/13 to till the date of payment to the complainants.

The O.P. is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the complainants and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of this order.

All such payments have to be made within one month from the date of this order by means of an A/c payee Cheque in favour of the complainants, failing which the O.P shall be liable to pay  punitive damage @ Rs. 200/- (Two hundred) per day till payment. If such punitive damage accrues and realized would be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund bearing Account no. 009300010031026.