Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/144/2015

Shri Karanvir Syal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kuoni SOTC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sudesh Kumar Adv.

06 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	144 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	5.3.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	6.5.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shri Karanvir Syal son of Shri Jagdeep Kumar Syal resident of House No.43, Saini Vihar, Phase I, Baltana, Zirakpur, Punjab.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. M/s Kuoni SOTC through its authorized person plot No. B-33, 1st floor, Kathiala Building, Inner Circle, Connaught place New Delhi, India 110001.

 

2. M/s Kuoni (SOTC) through Shri Avdesh Singh,  Manager Sales, Punjab and Chandigarh SCO No. 147-148, 1st floor, Above LG showroom, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160008 India.

 

3. Shri Arvind Kumar, Senior Executive,  Unbound Division Kuoni Travels India (Pvt.) Ltd. SCO No. 147-148, 1st floor, above LG showroom, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160008, India.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE: 

 

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                            PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA           MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Sudesh Kumar, Adv.
For OPs	:	Sh. Rohit Kapoor.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant booked a honeymoon trip with the OPs  through  Mr. Ankush Dutta their authorized executive on 2.3.2014 and made an advance payment of Rs.10,000/-.  The complainant initially planned the trip in the month of April 2014 but due to personal problem postponed the same to May 2014, which was duly conveyed to Opposite Party No.3.  It is alleged that though the complainant was assured by the Opposite Parties more discount for the trip but subsequently Opposite Parties No.2&3 pressurized him for more payment for the tour and threatened the complainant to cancel the trip. Resultantly somehow the complainant paid Rs.1.00 lacs to OPs No.1&2.  It has been pleaded that Opposite Party No.2 vide Annexure C-4 confirmed the trip of the complainant and asked him to fill the requisite VISA form, which was filled by the complainant and sent the same to Opposite Party No.1.  The complainant after deposit of Rs.1.00 lac duly furnished all the documents as and when required by the OPs. But they intentionally delayed the process and they time and again put forth new requirement from the complainant. Initially the complainant was asked  to submit bank statements for 6 months and other documents but thereafter the complainant was told that the bank statement should have good/healthy balance of Rs.3 to 4 lacs though this fact was never disclosed to the complainant earlier by the OPs at the time of booking.  It has been further pleaded that on the asking of the Opposite Parties the complainant paid a sum of Rs20,000/- to them in addition to Rs.1.00 lac. Afterward Opposite Party No.3 intimated the complainant vide email dated 21.4.2014 that his Swiss Visa has been submitted in the embassy accoding to the profile and financial conditions furnished by him.  It has further pleaded that the Opposite Party No.3 vide email dated 1.5.2014 informed the complainant about the interview in Swiss Embassy at New Delhi and asked him to be there and accordingly the complainant appeared before the Swiss Embassy with required documents on 2.5.2014 but when he returned back he was again asked by Opposite Party No.3 to pay more amount.   After some time on 9.5.2014  Opposite Party No.3 intimated the complainant that his visa has been rejected by the embassy and it further told the complainant that deduction from Rs.1.20 lacs will be made as per their policy of cancellation mentioned in visa forms. It has been pleaded that since the complainant never asked for cancellation of the trip he   sought refund of his full amount from the OPs but Opposite Party No.2  refunded an amount of Rs.66,000/- only that too after making numerous requests and communications. The complainant protested the same vide email dated 6.6.2014 and asked for refund of remaining amount of Rs.54,000/-. The complainant even sent a legal notice dated 31.7.2014 to the Opposite Parties but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.           Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Parties, seeking their version of the case
3.           The OPs have filed joint reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case. It has been asserted that the complainant was fully apprised about the requirement for undertaking the tour including the formalities necessary to be completed for getting the requisite Visa. The complainant was fully aware that reputed tour operators like the OPs only provide the necessary guidance and document forwarding services for applying for the requisite visa as part of the package and the ultimate responsibility of having a valid visa on the date of travel is of the tour participants themselves.  The cancellation charges payable by the tour participant in case of Visa rejection as duly  mentioned in the ‘How to Book’ Rules were duly supplied.  As such the complainant was fully aware that the OPs do not have any role in the grant or rejection of the Visa and are merely tour organizers and not Visa Agents who guarantee the grant of Visa.   It has been denied that any allurement of more discounts was offered to the complainant to book the tour in question as has been alleged by the complainant. It has also been denied that the complainant was pressurized to pay more money. In fact it is the complainant who is guilty of not making the timely payment of the tour cost as promised and agreed by him.  It has been further asserted that the complainant was duly provided with all possible assistance and guidance including the necessary information that the embassy may check financial documents like bank statements which should reflect the capacity to undertake the tour and also strong ties with country of origin to establish bonafide and intention to return.  The cancellation charges which were independent from the result of visa were also duly conveyed to the complainant.  It has been further pleaded that the visa was rejected by the embassy as it was not convinced that the complainant had sufficient means of subsistence for the duration of the intended stay or return to the country. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

4.          The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.

 

7.           After perusal of the record we are of the considered view that there are four issues which are required to be determined. The first issue is regarding the allegation of the complainant that he was forced and pressurized to book the honeymoon tour for Europe and was never disclosed the huge amount of money required for the tour. Second issue is regarding whether the visa of the complainant and his wife was rejected due to the lack of proper guidance in respect to documentation and finances by OPs documents and also it was not disclosed to the complainant at the time of booking that healthy balance would be required. Third issue is whether there was delay in communication of reasons for refusal of visa.   The fourth issue is whether the Opposite Party cannot impose cancellation charges, since the visa has been refused and the trip has not been cancelled by the complainant.

 

8.          With regard to first issue we have perused Annexure C-2 and Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-4 (colly) and find that there appears to be no force or pressure on the part of the OPs.  Regarding second issue we have perused Annexure R-1 (booking form) and Annexure R-3 (How to book holidays) and find that the Visa and tour documents are the responsibility of the passengers. Morever the complainant himself appeared for the interview to obtain visa therefore it’s the complainant’s responsibility to get the visa.  Regarding third issue the complainant has failed to produce any concrete evidence to prove his pleadings. As regards fourth issue is concerned, we have perused the terms and condition under the heading forfeiture of booking amount and find that it is clearly stipulated that the company shall be within its right to forfeit the non refundable free booking amount paid by the tour participant alongwith the completed booking and also to recover the scale of cancellation charges set out in the ‘How to Book’ section of the brochure. Hence, it is proved that there is no merit in the complaint and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

9.          In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint merits dismissal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

10.          The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

6.5.2016                   

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER