F.A.  1106/2008  against C.C. 997/2007,  Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.   

Between:

1. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd.,

Regd. Office at Thomas Cook Building

Dr. D. Baroji Road,

Mumbai- 400 001.

Rep. by its Managing Director

2. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd.

6-1-57, Nasir Arcade,

Saifabad, Hyderabad - 4

Rep. by its Regional Manager

3. Manager (Sales Travel Business)

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd.,

6-1-57, Nasir Arcade

Saifabad, Hyderabad-4.                              ***                          Appellants/

            Opposite Parties       

                                                                    And

1. Munir T.. Khambati

S/o. T. N. Khambati

Age: 39 years,

R/o. 6-2-20, Central View

New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad

2. Mrs. Alefiyyah Munir

W/o. Munir T. Khambati

Age: 35 years,

R/o. 6-2-20, Central View

New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad                    ***                         Respondents/

Complainants

Counsel for the Petitioner:                         M/s. P. Rajender Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent:                       P.I.P.

QUORUM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

    &

                                 SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER.
                                                         

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND NINE

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.)

***

This is an appeal preferred by the appellants,  travel agents against the order  of the Dist. Forum in awarding compensation and costs.

The case of the complainants in brief is that  complainant No. 2 is the wife of complainant No. 1.   When they intended to visit  Turkey, Greece, Hungary and Czech Republic  the appellants  the air travel agents promised that they would arrange air tickets to the above countries  and that they could stay at  Istanbul at least for 3 days and they would secure double visa for  Turkey and  Schegen visa for Greece  and travel insurance  and on that they paid Rs. 30,000/-  on 15.3.2007, and balance of  Rs. 85,500/- on 14.4.2007.   The  appellants promised that the travel documents would be handed over at Mumbai and advised them to proceed to Mumbai as per the schedule.   When they visited their office at Mumbai  on   17.4.2007  they were informed that they would deliver at  Mumbai airport at the early hours of 18.4.2007.   While reaching Istanbul  on verification they found that the double entry visa for Turkey was not obtained by them.  They tried to contact the appellants but there was no response.  They continued their trip.  On 24.4.2007 they advised to approach  Turkish Embassy at Budapest for transit visa.  However, in spite of best efforts they could not get entry for  Istanbul.   The Immigration Officer at Istanbul  airport refused entry on the ground that there was no stamp of  double entry.  They were made to sit in the Instanbul airport for 24 hours without proper food and water.  This was due to deficiency in service and callousness on the part of appellants.  When complained they admitted their guilt and offered free travel  to Bangkok and Dubai.    Since they underwent lot of mental tension at isolated Istanbul airport  and they had planned holiday trip for a long time but  did not due to negligence on the part of appellants they could not travel.  They claimed Rs. 19 lakhs  towards  compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs.

The appellants resisted the case.    They admitted that they had booked air tickets for them and offered to apply for visa with respective Embassies.  The Greece Embassy  handed over the visa  and pass ports of the complainants on  17.4.2007 morning.  They have submitted these passports with the Turkish Embassy  on the same day.   They issued  visa and returned the passports of the complainants on the evening of 17.4.2007.   They sent them to Mumbai through express courier and accordingly handed over  on 18.4.2007 at 3.00 a.m.  Though they had applied for double entry visa  due to fault of  the Turkish Embassy  the visas were issued with single entry.   Not giving double entry visa for  Turky was not their fault.   It was the responsibility of the Turkish Embassy.  They could not verify  whether it was single or double entry visa.   For the mistake committed by the Turkish Embassy and the delay  by the Greece Embassy it should not be a ground for claiming compensation against them.   They ought to have postponed  the tour for a few more days.   They were in the business of air ticketing, holiday packages, foreign exchange  etc. for the last several years.  For any mistake or error committed by the Embassy  they should not be find fault with.   As a goodwill gesture they gave discounted tickets to Bangkok.  They also offered discounted three nights in Bangkok and three nights in Dubai as a  goodwill gesture which was not acceptable to the complainants.   The compensation claimed was highly excessive when the tour itself was for an amount of  Rs. 1,50,000/- they could not have claimed  Rs. 19 lakhs. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

The complainants in proof of their case filed affidavit evidence and got marked  Exs. A1 to  A7 while the appellants filed the affidavit evidence of  its Branch Manager.  However, they did not file any documents.

The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record, opined that  admittedly in view of their negligence in not verifying whether there was double entry stamp  on the visa and delivering the tickets which made the complainants to stay in the airport without entering into  Turkey,  they could not enjoy the trip.   They also suffered humiliation.   Therefore, it directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1 lakh each besides costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said decision, the travel agents preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts  in correct perspective.  It ought to have seen that there was no negligence on their part.   It was the Turkish Embassy’s fault.   In fact, though there was some error, they have alternatively suggested discounted trips to Dubai and other places which the complainants did not avail , and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.

It is not in dispute that the complainants booked air tickets through the appellants to go to places  Turkey, Greece, Hungary and Czech Republic  etc. all  when the appellants promised  to look after their  air tickets covering all the countries and secure requisite double visa for Turkey and Schegen, and  visa for Greece.   It is not in dispute that the complainant had altogether paid an amount of Rs. 1,15,500/- evidenced under Exs. A2 to  A4.   The complainants having collected the air tickets etc. thinking that they could visit the above places  visited Budapast  on 28.4.2007 but the airport authorities at  Istanbul  refused permission to enter into Turkey on the ground that the double entry stamping was not made on the visas.   It is also not in dispute that the complainant and his wife were made to  sit at Istanbul airport for 24 hours without proper food and water from  6.00 p.m. of 28.4.2007 to 6.00 p.m. of 29.4.2007.   They returned to Mumbai  on 30.4.2007 without visiting the above places.  

The appellants did not dispute about the plight of the complainants.  What all they pleaded was that they could not verify whether there was double entry  visa issued by the Turkish Embassy.   When they themselves solicited for free customized holiday package, it could not  be a problem in getting the visa.  It  ought to have verified  whether there was proper stamping  of the Embassy.  The complainants might have not known all these rules and regulations.   Though the appellants admit that they could not verify by oversight,  the fact remains that the complainants could not visit the places which the appellants agreed to show.    When the appellants a reputed travel agent  did not verify, which it ought to have,  and due to its negligence, the complainants could not visit other places.   Undoubtedly,  there is deficiency in service on their part.   The expression of ‘oversight’ cannot be applied  in cases of this nature.   They are  professionals in the field  ought to have noticed that the double entry stamping was not affixed on the visas  of the complainants, due to which they were denied of the pleasure in visiting Turkey.   This undoubtedly amounts to deficiency in service.

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that when they noticed that the complainants could not enjoy the trip  they offered a customized holiday package as a compensation by their letter  Ex. A5 Dt. 4.5.2007  which includes three  nights accommodation in a standard three star hotel along with breakfast in Bangkok, half a day city tour of Bangkok and return airport transfers.  This was not acceptable to the complainants.   They do not intend to visit those places.  They cannot be forced to see unwanted places.

The appellants contended that for not visiting Instanbul,  an air fare of Rs. 29,000/- could have been  remained unspent  as against the claim of Rs. 50,000/-.   The Dist. Forum could not have awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- each towards compensation,  when the appellants themselves admitted deficiency in service in not verifying whether the complainants could visit  Instanbul  which it had promised to show. We may state that the complainants were denied of visiting those places for which they made all arrangements.   Apart from it, they were forced to stay in the airport,  for about a whole day, not knowing anything as to what would happen  more so in an alien country  where they did not have any support whatsoever.   It is not the case of the appellants even that their representatives had attended on the complainants at Instanbul airport, when the complainants were made to stay  at the airport  the whole day from  28.4.2007 to 29.4.2007.  They were forced to return to Mumbai on 30.4.2007.    It is a clear case of deficiency in service.  There cannot be any other explanations for  not verifying the stamping at the respective Embassies which amounts to deficiency in service.   It is the duty of the appellants to verify  more so,  when the passengers are going to foreign countries.    The fear, sufferance, trauma etc., undergone by them cannot be described in words.  It must be an untold suffering.

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded was too high for the inconvenience caused to the complainants.   No doubt the complainants have claimed Rs. 19 lakhs  whereas the Dist. Forum  awarded  Rs. 2 lakhs.  The complainants had paid altogether Rs. 1,15,000/- for the entire trip.  Since the complainants were entitled to return of fare which  the appellants themselves alleges that an amount of Rs. 29,000/- each could have been  spent towards air fare from  Instabul,  the complainants are entitled to  Rs. 58,000/- on that score.   Since they were put to untold misery  in the airport for the whole day awarding compensation towards mental agony  at Rs. 50,000/- to each of the complainants  would be suffice in the circumstances.  Therefore the appellants are directed to pay Rs. 75,000/- each.

In the result the appeal is allowed in part directing the  appellants to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- together with costs of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Dist. Forum.  There is  no order as to the costs in the appeal.   Time for compliance four weeks.

PRESIDENT                                     LADY MEMBER

                       Dt. 23. 01. 2009.