IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 16.03.2016

Date of Order : 03.12.2020

PRESENT:

Shri. V.S.Manulal President-in-charge

Shri.Ramachandran V. Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member.

CC.No.168/2016

Between

O R D E R

V.Ramachandran, Member

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant states that during October 2015 she had booked a family tour to London, Srinagar and Gulmarg. The opposite party is a tour operator named Cosima Travel Links Pvt. Ltd. with its office at M.G.Road, Kochi. The Managing Director of the institution is Baby Thoppil of the address mentioned in the complaint. The complainant approached the opposite party and informing her willingness to participate in the proposed journey scheduled by the opposite party from 20^th October 2015 to 29^th October 2015. The package rate was Rs.1,37,500/- per person. The complainant had submitted all relevant documents as requested by the opposite party for the tour programme and paid an advance amount of Rs.1,20,000/- on 30.09.2015 and the balance amount of Rs.2,92,500/- was paid on 13.10.2015 for three persons including the complainant, her husband and son. On 20.10.2015 the 2^nd opposite party informed that the visa could not be stamped and therefore they have cancelled the tickets. Further, on 23.10.2015 the opposite party informed the complainant that the visa for the complainant and her husband were stamped but the visa of her son could not be stamped due to some confusion in the visa. The 2^nd opposite party also advised the complainant to wait for 20 days more to see whether the visa of the son could be stamped. But after 20 days they informed the complainant that the visa of her son could not be stamped and they will refund the amount paid for her son’s visa. They also offered the complainant to proceed with the package without her son. The opposite parties offered the complainant to return the amount paid for her son.

Therefore, the complainant was forced to go for the tour without her son on 14.11.2015. The complainant arranged the family tour only to have a pleasure trip with her family. Without her son she could not enjoy the trip and was very much disappointed. She has been deprived with joy and pleasure of the trip as her son could not have joined with them only due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties. On that ground also she suffered much mental agony. After returning from the tour programme, the complainant and her son approached the 1^st opposite party and they demanded to refund the amount that she had already paid towards visa for her son. But the opposite parties had not refunded the amount of her son so far. After having received consideration non arrangement of Visa as offered is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant had sent a lawyer notice to the 1^st opposite party demanding refund of the amount already paid. Even accepting the notice, they neither send a reply nor paid the amount so far. The complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.1,37,500/- paid for her son. The complainant alleged that her son could not utilized the facility solely due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission seeking appropriate orders from this Commission to the opposite parties to return Rs.1,37,500/- being the amount collected by the them from the complainant.

2) Notices were sent to the opposite parties from this Commission and the opposite parties represented and filed their version in response to the notice received by them.

3) Version filed by the opposite parties.

In the version filed by the opposite parties, the opposite parties stated that the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to arrange a tour package to her and to her family members. The complainant informed the opposite parties that they were planning to visit London, Srinagar and Gulmarg. The opposite parties informed the complainant that the rate of package would be Rs.1,37,500/- per person. The opposite party informed the complainant that they can only process the visa and the stamping of Visa has to be done by the concerned authority. The opposite party also informed the complainant that all the members should be appeared before Visa facilitation office with all required documents. The opposite party stated that the complainant was duly aware about the tour package and its formalities including instance of cancellation, international air ticket cancellation charge, visa processing charge, hotel booking charge and also informed the complainant that all these amounts will be deducted from the tour packages charge of Rs.1,37,500/-. The complainant agreed the said condition and gave her consent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties arranged the tour by booking air tickets, hotel booking charges and also prepared the visa processing formalities. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.4,12,500/- to the opposite parties towards tour package charges of herself, her husband and son. The opposite parties stated that they have arranged hotel booking and also started the visa processing formalities. The complainant and her family members appear before the visa facilitation office at Ernakulam for visa stamping, but the visa of the complainant’s son had not been stamped by the concerned authority. It is submitted that the stamping of visa is beyond the control of the opposite parties. It was informed to the complainant and the complainant was fully satisfied and decided to go for the tour with her husband. It is submitted that the visa stamping was done by the concerned authority and not by the opposite parties. The opposite parties also stated that the complainant was very well aware that in case of cancellation of any person, the International Air Ticket cancellation charge, Domestic Air Ticket cancellation charge, hotel booking charge and visa processing charge etc will be deducted from the tour packages charge of Rs.1,37,500/- per person and inorder to avoid the same the complainant decided to continue the tour with her husband. It is stated that the complainant and her husband enjoyed the tour with the tour package arranged by the opposite parties. The averments made in para 3 of the complaint is denied by the opposite party since it is absolutely false. It was the complainant who informed the opposite parties to cancel the tour packages of her son, since the issue of non stamping of visa was well within the knowledge of the complainant. The opposite parties received the lawyer notice of the complainant and the opposite parties contacted the complainant in person and informed that the opposite parties had suffered a loss of Rs. 81,945/- due to the cancellation of the ticket of the same and expressed their willingness to pay an amount of Rs.55,555/- to the complainant. The complainant informed the opposite parties that she will contact the opposite parties after consulting with her husband and replied. The main allegation of the complainant is that she could not enjoy the tour programme since the visa of her son had not been got stamped. It is stated that the stamping of visa is beyond the control of the opposite parties and with regards to the non stamping of the visa, the said issue issued is within the power of the visa facilitation centre and the concerned authority. If the complainant really believes that she could not enjoy the pleasure of the trip without her son, she ought to have cancelled the trip, but nothing was done by her. The opposite party had cancelled the international air tickets, domestic air tickets and hotel booking of her son and due to the said cancellation the opposite parties suffered a loss of Rs,73,020/-. The opposite parties also paid a sum of Rs,8,925/- towards U K visa processing and other charges and hence the opposite parties stated that there is no deficiency in service from the opposite parties in this case and stamping of visa is beyond the control of the opposite parties and there is no deficiency in service in this case.

4) Evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit filed by the complainant. PW1 has been examined in box and the documentary evidence produced and marked as Exbt.A1 and A2. No oral or documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties.

5) The following issues are to be analysed in this case.

(i) Whether the complainant has established any deficiency of service from the side of the opposite parties?

(ii) If so, whether the complainant is eligible to get compensation?

(iii) Cost of the proceedings if any?

6) Issue No. (i)

We have examined the matter in detail with reference to the documents filed before the Commission. The complainant had approached the opposite party who is running a tour operating service for tour package to abroad as well as in India. The complainant had booked a family tour to London, Srinagar and Gulmarg. The said facts were accepted by the opposite party. The package rate was Rs.1,37,500/- per person. The complainant paid the said amount for three persons to the opposite party. There is no dispute that they had accepted the said amount. The proposed tour was fixed from 20^th October 2015 to 29^th October 2015. The opposite party states that they had arranged hotel booking and also visa processing formalities for the complainant and her family. For visa stamping, the complainant and her family members appeared before the visa facilitation office at Ernakulam. But the visa had not been stamped by the concerned authority. The reason for non stamping of visa of complainant’s son had not been mentioned either by the complainant or by the opposite parties in any where in this case. The question arises as to whether the stamping of the visa is coming under the service of the opposite party which is very vital in this case. The opposite party has not produced any evidence to the effect that the stamping of visa do not comes under the service of the opposite party though it is being done by the visa facilitation office. The complainant had not produced any evidence or documents to the effect that the stamping of the visa is included in the service of the opposite party which has been asked and recorded in the cross examination of PW1 by the opposite party on the basis of Exbt.A1 and A2. Exhibit A1 is only an acknowledgment card and Exbt.A2 is the copy of lawyer’s notice sent to the opposite parties by the complainant. Another important fact which is to be considered in this case is that the version of the opposite party that they had spent a huge amount and suffered great loss by way of payment and cancellation of international air ticket, domestic air ticket and by way of hotel booking for her son. The opposite parties also paid a sum of Rs.8,925/- towards U K Visa processing which they had deducted from the amount of Rs.1,37,500/- paid by the complainant for her son. In this context, it is to be noted that the opposite parties had not produced any elementary evidence or documents or receipts to establish that they had booked air ticket, domestic travel ticket, U K Visa processing charge or had they not established with support of any evidence to the fact that they had spent or lost any amount for the service providing for the departure of the son of the complainant. In the absence of evidence and also in the absence of establishing the fact that visa stamping is not coming under the services of the opposite party and the opposite party is duty bound to return the full amount paid by the complainant for her son’s journey. We are of the opinion that deduction of any amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party for the journey of her son, arranged by the opposite party is illegal and that cannot be justified. Since booking hotel accommodation and other facilities even before ensuring visa is highly unfair and therefore amounts to clear deficiency of service. Hence point No. (i) is found in favour of the complainant and the complainant had sustained severe deficiency of service from the opposite parties. Since point No. (i) is in favour of the complainant, the opposite parties are liable to pay the entire amount of Rs.1,37,500/- to the complainant.

7) Issue Nos. (ii) and (iii)

We find that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant the loss for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant since the complainant had to travel without her son in the proposed family trip. We fix a compensation amount at Rs.25,000/- for the same. The complainant had spent her valuable time and money to contest this case before this Commission. Therefore, we find that the complainant is entitled to get costs of this proceedings which we fix at Rs.5,000/- from the opposite parties.

8) In the result, we allow the complaint and direct as follows:

1) The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.1,37,500/- to the complainant towards the visa charges which the complainant had
paid for her son.

2) The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainants.

3) The opposite parties shall also pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.

The above orders shall be complied with, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. upto the date of realization.

Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 3^rd day of December 2020.

Sd/-

Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

V.S.Manulal, President-in-charge

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits: Nil

Depositions :

PW1 :: Raisa Beegum

Date of Despatch ::

By Hand ::

By Post ::