A  Rajesh, President.

The case of the complainants is as follows:

          The opposite parties had advertised for a tour programme ‘Duniya Dekho’ an escorted group tour to Europe.  Allured by the advertisement on 18-03-2009 the complainants booked the tour   by paying Rs. 3,07,667/-.  As  instructed by the opposite parties the complainants submitted the documents along with signed black application form for processing the visa.  But the visa  applications of the complainants have been rejected by the U.K. Boarder Agency.  The 2^nd opposite party had failed to make the correct entries in the visa application forms.  The rejection of the visa resulted in the complainants not being able to take part in the tour programme.  Thereafter by letter dated 25-05-2009 the opposite party had refunded Rs. 2,21,667/- against the amount of Rs. 3,07,667/- paid by the complainants.  On 05-06-2009 the complainants issued a notice to the opposite parties to refund the balance amount of Rs. 80,000/-.  The 1^st opposite party sent a reply stating untenable contentions.  There was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.   Thus the complainants are before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund Rs. 86,000/- with interest together with compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs and costs of the proceedings.

          2. Version of opposite parties.

          This Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  The parties have by the contract conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts and Forum at South Mumbai.  The complainants booked the tour programme by paying Rs. 3,07,667/-.  The visa applications of the complainants have been rejected because they have made a false mention that they had never been refused a visa to  any country including UK.  Thus a cancellation charge of Rs. 40,000/-  per person and unserved reservation fees of Rs. 3,000/- have been forfeited and the balance amount was refunded to the complainants.   There is neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Opposite parties  request to dismiss the complaint.

          3. The 1^st complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the complainants.  Witnesses for the opposite parties were examined as DWs 1 and 2 and Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on their side.  Heard the counsel for the parties.

          4. The points that arose for consideration

          i. Whether the complaint is maintainable in this Forum?

          ii. Whether the complainants are entitled to get refund of a total  

              amount of Rs. 86,000/- from the opposite parties?

          iii. Compensation and costs of the proceedings

          5. Point No. i. According to the opposite parties as per
Ext. B1 booking form and the terms and conditions the Courts, Forums and Tribunals in the Mumbai alone shall have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.   Evidently the terms and conditions are in too fine print which no body can read the terms and conditions with naked eyes.  Since the terms and conditions are in fine print they  are not binding on the complainants as per the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission in Blaze Hash Couries (P) Ltd. Vs. Rohit Peladiya and another I (2008) CPJ 452 NC to the same effect.  Moreover the opposite parties in their version categorically stated that part of the cause of action for this complaint has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Since we are relying on the above decision we do not  have to consider the following decision cited by the opposite parties (Shriram City Union Finance Corporation Ltd. Rama Mishra (2002 (9) SCC. 613). The very first contention goes against the opposite parties.

          6. Point No. ii.  Admittedly the complainants submitted the necessary documents before the opposite parties for processing the visa application to the U.K.  It is not in dispute that the visa applications had been rejected by the UK authorities stating that false representation had been made in relation to the application for visa.  According to the complainants they have signed in blank application forms and the opposite parties made the entries in the applications and primarily and alone are responsible for the rejection of the visa.  However the opposite parties maintain that the applications are filled out by the complainants and they are in no way responsible for the rejection of visa.  They further stated that as per the terms and conditions in Ext.B1 they are entitled to forfeit Rs. 86,000/-.  During rejection of the UK visa the visa officer gathered the rejection of French Visa from the complainants’ passport. The opposite parties are the tour operator and service provider, if at all the applications have been filled out by the complainants, the opposite parties are duty bound to verify the entries in the visa application forms,  on which they failed. DW1 deposed that he is not the proper person to say authentically about the rejection of the visa.  DW2 deposed in tune with the case of the opposite parties.  The evidence of DWs. 1 and 2 will not help the opposite parties to substantiate their contentions for substantiating reasons stated here before.  In view of the above we are only to hold that the rejection of the visa was due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Though the opposite parties contended that they have acted in accordance with the terms and conditions in Exts. B1 which evidently even they can not read as observed above holds no water. So the retention  of  Rs. 86,000/- is not sustainable in law and the opposite parties are liable to refund the same to the complainants.

          7. Point No. iii. The primary grievance of the complainants have been met squarely, thereafter the prayer for  compensation is only a lullaby after the baby has slept.  Nevertheless the opposite parties are liable to pay costs of the proceedings to the complainants, the consumer were put to for inconveniences borne by them.  We fix it Rs. 2,000/-.

          8.  In the result, we allow the complaint in part and direct that

i. the opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund Rs. 86,000/- to the complainants together with 12% interest from the date of complaint till realization.

ii. the opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainants by way of costs of the proceedings.

          The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month   from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 22^nd day of July 2011