DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 29^th day of  November 2024

[                                                                                             

                             Filed on: 21/11/2018

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                                Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                           Member

C C. No. 478/2018

COMPLAINANTS

1. Jiju M.Jacob, S/o.Jacob, Moonjely House, Narakal P.O., Pin-682 505

2. Sibi Abraham, S/o.late Abraham, Kannampuzha House, Narakal P.O., Pin-682 505

(By Adv.M.N.Sanjith, Adv.Biju Kurien)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Fortune Destinatin Management India Pvt. Ltd., @Fortune Tours, 1^st Floor, Mannamthara Tower, Paramara Rod, Ernakulam North, Cochin-682 018 Rep by its Managing Director Basitin Joseph
2. Bastin Joseph, Manging Director, Fortune Tours, 1^st Floor, Mannamthara Tower, Paramara Road, Ernakulam North, Cochin-682 018
3. Sindu Nair, Director, Fortune Tours, 1^st Floor, Mannamthara Tower, Paramara Rod, Ernakulam North, Cochin-682 018
4. Solvi Vincent, Director, Fortune Tours, 1^st Floor, Mannamthara Tower, Paramara Rod, Ernakulam North, Cochin-682 018
5. Vinod Venugopal, Director, Fortune Tours, 1^st Floor, Mannamthara Tower, Paramara Rod, Ernakulam North, Cochin-682 018

(ops rep. by Adv.U.K.Devidas, S2, Ruby Court View, Puthullil Lane, Kochi-18)

F I N A L    O  R  D  E  R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

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

The opposite parties had advertised in various medias about conducting a Grand Europe tour a group four for travelling to eight countries like London, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Vatican and Italy.  The complainants are intended to participate in that tour.  The date of commencement of the tour was on 15^th day of September 2018.  The duration of the tour was 12 nights and 13 days.  The total tour cost was Rs.212710/- which was to be paid in instalements Rs.10000/- was paid through account transfer by each complaints as advance on 10.07.2018.  The 2^nd instalment of Rs.39000/- each was paid by the complainats on 31.07.2018 before UK Visa submission.  The third instalment of Rs.50000/- each was also paid by the complainants on 30.08.2018 before the Schengen visa submission.  All the mandatory documents were also submitted earlier to opposite party No.1 for processing the visa for complainants travel. 

The 1^st opposite party had obtained the UK visa for both the complainants initially and thereafter started processing of the Schengen visa.  Complainants had paid the balance amount of Rs.1,13,710/- (Rupees One lakh thirteen  thousand seven hundred and ten only) each to the 1^st opposite party at Hotel Gokulam Park, wherein opposite parties had arranged a meeting of the members of the tour group scheduled to travel on 15.09.2018.

On the previous day of the travel, the 1^st opposite party informed that the two complainants that the Schengen visa was not released from embassy and hence the complainants cannot travel on the group tour scheduled on 15.09.2018. The opposite parties had made believe the complainants that the visa will be obtained in time and no difficulties will be there.  The complainants had requested to return the amount paid by them.  The opposite party 1 is staff had returned to the complainants Rs.113710/- each, and informed that the entire amounts will be repaid within one month ie., on or before 15.10.2018.  Thereafter an amount of Rs.10000/- each to the complainants’  bank account was transferred by the opposite party.  The complainants states that the opposite parties are liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.89000/- since the amounts were not repaid.  Complainant No.1 had issued registered notice dated 26.10.2018 to the 2^nd opposite party requesting to pay the entire balance amount to the complainants.  The 2^nd opposite party accepted the registered notice and no response received from the 2^nd opposite party. The complainants state that there is deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties and the deficient act of the opposite party had caused severe mental agony, hardship and financial loss to the complainant.  Hence the complainant had approached the Commission seeking orders directing the opposite party

1. To pay an amount of Rs.89,000/- each along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of realization to the complainants.
2. To direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.20000/- each to the complainants for the damage and mental agony suffered by the complainants.
3. To award cost of the proceedings.

2. Notice

Notices were issued to the opposite parties from this Commission.  Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed their version.

3. Version of the opposite parties.

The complainants were booked seats in the tour package to U.K. and Europe which was conducted on 05.09.2018.  The tour cost was fixed as Rs.1,99,000/- as per the request of the complainants.  The total amount paid by the complainants is Rs.99,000/- each and the balance amount for the above said tour package is Rs.1,00,000/- each.   Since the Schengen VISA for 4 passengers were delayed from the Italian consulate, the opposite parties did not receive the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each from the complainants.  The opposite parties are denied the averments in the complaint that the complainants had paid Rs.2,12,710/- as tour cost to the opposite parties. The opposite parties were decided to return the full amount paid by the complainants to them along with an additional amount of Rs.11,000/- . The opposite parties had transferred Rs.10,000/- each to their bank accounts and balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each were paid to the complainants.  The opposite parties did not paid Rs.1,13,710/- each to the complainants as stated in their complaint and paid Rs.1,10,000/- only.

The complainants are not paid full tour cost of the tour package.  There was no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties.

4. Evidence

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainants No.1 and the documentary evidence filed by the complainants which were marked as Exbt.A1 to A6.  No other evidence from the part of the complainants.

Opposite party has not produced documentary or oral evidence.

Evidence closed.  Both parties filed argument notes.  Heard the counsel for the complainants.

5. The issues taken up for consideration in this case are as follows.

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite parties towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?

6. Issue No. (1)

The case of the complainants is that on the previous day of the scheduled date of the tour the opposite party had informed that the Schengen visa of the complainants were not released from the embassy and hence the complainants could no travel the tour which is scheduled on 15.09.2018.  The complainants state that they had paid Rs.212710/- to the opposite party in 4 instalments.  The complainants states that the opposite party had refunded Rs.1,13,710/- each to the complainants.  Thereafter transferred an amount of Rs.10000/- each to the complainants bank account.  The complaint is filed to get the balance amount of Rs.89000/- from the opposite party. As per the documentary evidence filed by the complainants, the complainant No.1 and 2 each paid Rs.89000/- to the opposite party.  The complainants state that Rs.10000/- was paid to the opposite party on 10.07.2018 as advance.  The complainants also state that balance amount of Rs.1,13,710/- was also paid to the opposite party on 15.09.30218. 

The opposite party in their version also admits that the complainants were paid Rs.10000/- each through bank transfer on 10.07.2018 for applying visa to UK.  The 2^nd instalment of Rs.39000/- was also paid by the complainant No. (1) and (2) each.  Another 50000/- was also paid by the complainants to the opposite party by cash.  The opposite party admits that the total amount paid by the complainants each is Rs.99000/-.  The balance amount for the said tour was Rs.1,00,000/- since the tour cost was fixed as Rs.1,99,000/-.

The opposite party also states in their version that since the Schengen visa for 4 passengers were delayed from the Italian consulate, the opposite parties did not receive the balance amount of Rs.100000/- each from the complainants.  The opposite parties denied the fact that the complainants had paid Rs.2,12,710/- as tour cost to the opposite parties.

The opposite parties states in their version that the issuance and rejection of the visa application is the sole discretion of the embassy/consulate of the respective countries and the opposite parties are not liable for the delaying of the process of issuance of visa.  The opposite parties had submitted application for the visa and Schengen visa with all the documents within time.

We have thoroughly verified the facts of the case, version filed by the opposite parties and the documents filed in this case.  As per the available evidence in this case the complainant Nos. 1 and 2 each had paid an amount of Rs.89,000/- to the opposite party (39000+50000).

Admittedly, the complainants could not join the group tour since Schengen visa were not released to the complainants from the embassy.  The complainants states that all the mandatory requirements were submitted to the opposite party for processing the visa for the travel of the complainants No.1 and 2.  Since the complainants could not participate the tour the opposite party had returned Rs.123,710 (Rs.113710/-+Rs.10000/-) to each complainants’.  The complaint is filed to get the balance amount of Rs.89000/-.

The opposite party states that the rejection of Visa application is the sole discretion of the consulate/embassy of the respective countries and the opposite parties are not liable for the delaying the process of the issuance of visa.  The opposite parties had stated in their argument note that the opposite parties had transferred Rs.10000/- each to the complainant Nos 1 and 2’s bank accounts and the balance amount of RS.100000/- each were paid to the complainants.  The opposite parties argued that in fact the complainants received Rs.11,000/- as additional amounts from the opposite parties and hence there is no deficiency in service from their part.

As per the documents filed by the complainants, the complainants had paid Rs.89000/- to the opposite party for joining the group tour.  The complainant’s could not participate in the tour programme since the Schengen visa was not ready for the complainants.  The opposite parties have no such case that the complainants were not produced the necessary documents for obtaining the Schengen visa and hence the visa was not obtained from the embassy.  The opposite parties have no contention that the Schengen visa of the complainants were not obtained due to the fact that the complainants were not paid the balance amount to the opposite party.

In this case, the complainants could not travel the tour on 15.09.2018 due to the non-receival of the Schengen visa from the Embassy.  As per the available evidence, Rs.89000/- each was paid to the opposite parties by the complainant No. 1 and 2.  Since the complainants could not participate on the tour, the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount to the complainants. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence in this case to prove their contentions.  The complainant had sent a registered letter to the opposite party and eventhough the said notice served, no response received from the opposite party and the balance amounts are not refunded to the complainants.  Deficiency in service is proved from the side of the opposite parties towards the complainants.  The opposite parties are liable to refund the amounts to the complainants. Since the complainants have not participated in the tour. The reluctance from the part of the opposite party refund the amount to the complainants is an act of deficiency in service.  The deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties have caused much mental agony, hardship and financial loss to the complainants.

The issue No. (1)and (2) are found in favour of the complainants and the following orders are hereby issued.

1. The opposite parties shall refund Rs.89000/- (Rupees Eighty Nine thousand only) to the complainants No. 1 and 2 each.
2. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainants.
3. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.6000/- as cost of the proceedings.
4. The liability of the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally

The above order shall be complied with by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of acceptance of a copy of this order. If the order is not complied within 30 days, the amount ordered vide (1) above shall attract interest at the rate of interest 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization.

    Pronounced in the open commission on the 29^th day of November 2024.

Sd/-

                                                                                    Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

                                                                                    V.Ramachandran, Member

                                                                                                Forwarded by Order

                                                                                                Assistant Registrar

uk/

Date of dispatch

By Hand

By Post