PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Counsel for the petitioner heard. There is a delay of 518 days in filing the present revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay is explained in para Nos. 2 and 3, which are reproduced below: “2. That the petitioners were wrongly proceeded ex-parte on the ground that notice of the appeal was issued to them for 8th July, 2011, but the same was not received back despite the lapse of more than thirty days as such the petitioners were wrongly presumed to have been served and the Ld. State Commission passed Ex-parte against the petitioner; 3. That the petitioners came to know about the impugned order dated 24.08.2011, on 17.01.2013 when the employee of petitioners at New Delhi, received the copy of the bailable warrants of arrest, issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II UT, Chandigarh for appearance of the petitioners on 31.01.2013 before the said Forum and now the case is fixed for hearing on 25.04.2013.” -3- 2. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that notice of appeal was not served upon him. Judgment reveals that the order was passed ex-parte against the respondents. It was noted by the State Commission that notice of the complainant (before the District Forum) was sent to the opposite parties but the same were received back with the report of refusal and since refusal is good service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte. This is in respect of the order passed by the District Forum. The First Appeal mentions about the service of the opposite party in para No.7, which is reproduced as follows: “Notice of the appeal as issued to the respondents/Ops for 08.07.2011 but the same were not received back even inspite of lapse of more than thirty days. The notice was, therefore, presumed to have been served on the respondents and the appeal was ordered to be heard ex-parte.” 3. It is interesting to note that the opposite parties/petitioners did not anywhere stated that the notice sent against them were not sent on the correct address. There are no pleadings in respect of that issue. Consequently, District Forum and the First Appellate Court rightly presumed that the petitioners were served. The petitioners were negligent and arrogant and did not appear before both the foras. The service upon the petitioners stand established beyond reasonable doubt. -4- Consequently, we pin no value with the explanation given by the petitioner. The case is barred by time. 4. In Anshul Aggarwal V. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that “It is also opposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”. 5. It is also not understood why the warrant of arrest was issued against him. These do not mention that no notice was sent by the Executing court. All the necessary details have been kept under the hat. 6. Now, we turn to the merits of this case. 7. Mohinder Singh Dhiman the complainant paid Rs. 40,000/- as advance towards the tour package for Port Blair with complimentary overseas visit to Switzerland and France starting from Chandigarh. The total amount of the package was Rs. 3,75,559/- and subsequently it was -5- changed to Rs. 95,600/- per person which included the air tickets and Schengen visa. The tour was to commence from 17.06.2010. All the documents required by the opposite parties were provided to them by the complainant for obtaining visa. He requested them and made enquiry about the visa. The opposite party-Anuga Holidays tried to put off the matter but ultimately he himself came to know that his visa application was rejected by the French Embassy. It also transpired that the visa was rejected but he did not have the enough amount in his bank account. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 28.08.2010 asking the OPs to refund the money along with interest but it did not ring the bell. He filed a complaint before the District Forum. The complaint was heard by three-Members of the Tribunal and majority of two Members dismissed the complaint. 8. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant preferred the First Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties to pay back the amount of Rs. 40,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum since 07.06.2010 till the amount is paid back to the complainant. The opposite parties were also directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost. It was further directed that if the entire amount was not paid within thirty days from the -6- date of receipt of copy of the order, the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the date of the order till the entire payment was made to the complainant. 9. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there is no agreement between the parties that it will return the above said amount and it was not obligatory upon the petitioner to return the money to the complainant. He contended that the order passed by the District Forum is well reasoned and that should be restored and it does not stand established that there was deficiency on the part of the petitioner. All the fault lies at the door of the complainant because he himself supplied a negative statement of the bank. 10. All these arguments are lame on strength. The State Commission in its well written judgment has clearly mentioned that the opposite parties are not just a Post Office to send to the Embassy the documents provided by the complainant. It was further observed that had it been so, there was no need to route the same through the opposite parties and further, there was no need for the opposite parties to inite the visa application to be routed through it. In that event, the complainant could have sent the same directly to the French Embassy. It is difficult to fathom as to what is the function of the petitioners. The job done by -7- them was hit or miss. The whole drama ended in a tragic fiasco through their sheer inefficiency. 11. The complainant who is a layman is not expected to know the visa rule of every country. It is difficult to understand why did they charged Rs. 40,000/-. It could have been done even without their services. 12. The deficiency on the part of the opposite parties clearly stand established when they did not give proper advise to the complainant as to what type of bank statement was needed. It was incumbent upon the opposite parties to confirm that the bank statement of the complainant should show atleast a credit balance of more than Rs. 1.5 lacs but this fact was not mentioned by the petitioners to the complainant. The deficiency is apparent on the record. 13. Again two photographs were required to be sent along with visa application. As per visa rule they should have been sent with white background. The needful was not done. Due to negligence, inactivity, and passivity on the party of the petitioner, deficiency of service also stands established on their part. 14. Another deficiency which can be noticed is that the complainant was asked to search for his own visa, instead of telling the truth that his visa application had been dismissed. It is clear that the proper guidance was not given to the complainant. It is also interesting to note that the -8- complainant did not know about his programme, though only one day was left in the flight. Each action or inaction was performed in a happy go lucky manner. 15. The revision petition is merit less on the point of time as well as on merits. The revision petition is therefore dismissed with additional costs of Rs. 10,000/- which be paid to the complainant within 45 days, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% per annum. Copies be sent to both the parties as per law. | 
