BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 77/2013 Filed on 18.02.2013

ORDER DATED: 18.09.2017

Complainant:

Ajith Lawrence, residing at Sahithi, T.C 14/1928(1), Mother Teresa Chapel Road, Kannammoola, Thiruvananthapuram-695 011.

                                       (By Adv. Michael Kutty Mathew)   

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Riya Holidays (P) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Tara Towers, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 010.

2. The Managing Director, M/s Riya Holidays (P) Ltd., Tara Towers, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 010.

This case having been heard on 12.07.2017, the Forum on 18.09.2017 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER

Complainant’s case is as follows:  The complainant is a well known Journalist in Kerala.  As a Free-lance journalist, he is reporting for various media organizations of national and international reaches.  Complainant was supposed to report the coronation ceremony of Arch Bishop Basellious mar Cleamees of Malankara Syrian Catholic Church, as the Cardinal of the very same church, which is the highest position a Catholic Religious head could aspire, after the Vatican, the Pope.  The coronation ceremony was fixed to take place on 24^th and 25^th of November 2012.  The coronation ceremony of a cardinal is of greatest importance to the people of the entire Catholic world irrespective of national barriers and the position of cardinalship was adorned to a particular group of catholic faith known as the ‘Oriental Church’ the origin of which is in Kerala and hence the news worthiness was of utmost significance.  As far as the complainant is concerned, reporting such events is not only one of the rarest opportunities in his career but also that would render him maximum fiscal remunerations from various media organizations mentioned earlier.  The complainant approached the office of the opposite parties on 07.11.2012 well in advance of the event for the purpose of the Visa service and had detailed discussion regarding the tour, the importance, purpose, objectives and benefits of doing the news coverage of the event in Italy for him.  The staff of the opposite parties agreed to arrange Visa stamping service through their office.  In the light of that day’s discussion and orally agreeing to arrange visa services, the complainant entrusted to Mr. Thomas, his most valuable nationality proving passport which already had a couple of European Union’s Visa stamped in it.  He also entrusted with Mr. Thomas his personal letter, a white plain paper and bank statement with his signature on them, as agreed, to get the complainant all the services required for his visa stamping and return the passport within a week.  After one week, the complainant approached the opposite party several times in person and followed up the matter in view of the urgency of the situation.  They did not heed to his humble plea, rather they all were purposefully trying to forcefully make him purchase an air ticket at a very huge price at Rs. 80,000/- and cheat him.  The air ticket and service charges in other airline agencies were far less than half of the amount the office people of the opposite parties were demanding from the complainant.  The office of the opposite party were trying to impose and cheat the complainant with huge air fare and when he did not agree to their demand for huge sums they even threatened the complainant that they would waylay his tour.  They succeeded in their stealthy conspiracy to cheat and way laid the complainant’s travel by illegally withholding his passport after the Italian Visa stamped.  If the office people had returned the complainant’s passport in time and allowed him to travel, he would have earned not less than USD 10000 from reporting the event for the earlier mentioned media organizations.  The opposite parties by detaining the complainant’s passport illegally spoiled his rarest chance to see the Holy Pope Benedict XVI.  As a staunch Catholic this unjustifiable loss imposed upon the complainant by the opposite parties is irreparable.  The complainant had also arranged a couple of his friends Fr. P.J. Joseph working in Vatican Radio and Rajan Antony working in a private company in Rome, who agreed to provide him food and accommodation as well as local travels if required.  All these went in vain, as the trip was obstructed.  Even while the complainant’s passport was stamped with visa (from 22-28^th) prior to his flight time, the opposite parties had played treacherous game to hide his passport with visa and demanded exorbitant rate for the air ticket i.e; Rs. 80,000/- and cheat him by imposing heavy financial burden.  The date of Italian visa stamped in the complainant’s passport speaks for the treacherous plan the opposite parties meted out to him by detaining his passport indefinitely so that his tour was obstructed until the visa period is over.  To get back the passport of the complainant, he had to wait till next month, even after the cardinal’s coronation function was over and the cardinal was back from Italy.  By illegally and treacherous means of withholding the passport of the complainant, the opposite parties have made sure that the complainant did not make the ambitious trip to Italy.  At last the passport was given by taking Rs. 8000/- as service charge for visa.  The complainant’s passport was retained by the opposite parties for two weeks purposefully to harass him.  That caused him terrible miseries and irreparable mental agony and financial loss.  It is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

Opposite parties filed version contending as follows: The complaint has been filed without any bonafides, just to harass and vex this opposite party.  The only aim of the complainant is for unjust enrichment from opposite parties.  Complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and he has no locus standi to file this consumer complaint.  From the facts made out in the complaint itself it can be seen that the complainant had approached this opposite party for a commercial purpose.  On this ground the complaint is to be dismissed.  Further the complainant alleges cheating on the part of the opposite parties.  It is submitted that matters concerning criminal allegations like cheating are beyond the purview of summary jurisdiction of this Forum, which is inherently civil in nature.  On this score also the complaint is to be dismissed.  There was no direct dealing between the complainant and the opposite party.  The whole tour package, itinerary etc. were done by the Bishop House, Vellayambalam, Trivandrum.  The complainant was only a member of the said tour program arranged by the Bishop House.  Hence the Bishop House is also a necessary part to this complaint.  And hence the complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party.  On this score also the complaint is to be dismissed.  The complainant had never approached the opposite party for purpose of visa stamping or for any other purpose.  A tour itinerary had been arranged by the Bishop House, Trivandrum with that of the opposite party and there were several people in the tour package organized by the Bishop House.  The complainant had also not directly entrusted the passport with the opposite party as alleged in the complaint.  The passport of the complainant was furnished by Mr. Suresh, Secretary, Bishop House, Trivandrum.  Itinerary and posting was also done in consultation with the Bishop House and approval of all concerned.  They were instrumental in organizing the trip for the coronation ceremony.  The allegation that the complainant was forced to take a ticket for Rs. 80,000/- is also untrue.  The amount was fixed after agreeing the terms and conditions of the tour and the program fixed by Bishop’s House.  The complainant it seems is only a member of the tour and program as arranged by the Bishop’s House.  On believing that the complainant also was a member of the said team; this opposite party had submitted application for visa and forwarded it to the Italian consulate and had it stamped by the Italian Consulate.  There was no attempt to cheat the complainant or any exorbitant air charges been demanded.  There was no attempt to waylay the tour of the complainant nor the complainant’s passport illegally detained after visa stamping.  The complainant has not travelled in the tour group approved by the Bishop House only due to reasons best known to the complainant and the Bishop House.  To the knowledge of the opposite party, the complainant refused to travel because one of his friends could not accompany him for rejection of their visa due to insufficient documentation.  It is important to mention at this juncture that when Italian Schengen visa is stamped it is the responsibility of the opposite party to see that the passengers travelling in the visiting visa to Italy should return with the visa validity and the original of the passport is to be shown in the Italian Consulate and that is the reason why passports are not returned during the period of visa.  It is also to be mentioned that the opposite party had taken more than 160 passengers including clergies and important dignitaries to Italy for this function.  Since there are so many cases of illegal human trafficking to European countries in the pretext of these kind of ceremonies; the Italian Government is very cautious in issuing visa and that to after getting an indemnity from the opposite party that all the passengers who had travelled in the trip will return within the visa validity period and that all the passports should be submitted before the Italian Consulate.  Thus the allegation that the passport of the complainant was illegally retained is utter falsehood.  As stated aforesaid the reasons why the complainant could not make the trip is known only to the complainant and the Bishop House.  In this regard the Bishop House is also a necessary party to the complaint.  There was no unlawful detaining of the passport nor have the opposite party done anything to hamper the chance of the complainant meeting Holy Pope Benedict XVI.  Further allegation of cheating falls outside the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The fare was fixed, the itinerary fixed and the travel was arranged by the opposite party in consultation with the Bishop House.  The opposite party had only charged the legal and statutory fees for visa charges.  The complainant was not ready to pay Rs. 80000/- for the program.  There is no deficiency in service whatsoever on the part of the opposite parties.  There has been no harassment, ill-treatment, deficiency of service, cheating or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.     

Issues:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. If so, whether there is any unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties is proved?
3. Reliefs and costs if any?

Issues (i) to (iii):- Complainant filed affidavit along with 9 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P9 and was examined as PW1.  Opposite party also filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. 

Perused the documents and gone through the pleadings.  Opposite party raised the question of maintainability as the preliminary issue on the ground that complainant approached the opposite party for a commercial purpose and there is allegation of cheating which oust the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Gone through the evidence and we are of the opinion that complaint is maintainable since he is alleging deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in not issuing him air tickets for a journey which he was about to travel.  The purpose for which he undertakes that journey is not a valid question here.  Mere allegation of cheating is there, it is not proved.  So the complaint is maintainable. 

The only question to decide here is whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in not issuing the air ticket in proper time.  Complainant filed 9 documents to prove his case, most of them are documents showing his excellence as a journalist.  His allegation is that he was asked to pay Rs. 80,000/- for his air ticket which according to him is exorbitant when compared to other travels agency.  He had not paid the amount also.  He admits this in his deposition also.  Without paying that amount, how he can blame the opposite party that they have failed in delivering him the ticket.  Moreover he also admits that the opposite party got the visa stamped.  Opposite party contended that they have not returned the passport to him till the visa expired, since it was their liability to ensure that the passenger had returned from his foreign trip.  These precautions are to prevent human trafficking done in the guise of these types of occasions.  Complainant failed to prove otherwise.  So we are of the opinion that complainant failed to prove his case, which is only to be dismissed. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed.     

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 18^th day of September 2017.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

 Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

                        R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 77/2013

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - L. Ajith

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1(a) - Book ‘Time and Tide’ published by India disasters organization

P1(b) - pamphlet ‘tsunami response watch’

P1(c) - Copy of appointment letter

P1(d) - Employment certificate dated 24.11.2011

P2(a) - Cashier’s order/Bank cheque application form

P2(b) - Intimation of payment on 25.10.2012 for Rs. 23,000/-

P2(c) - Intimation of payment on 18.12.2012 for Rs. 40,000/-  

P3(a) - List of ICPA Officer-bearers

P3(b) - Copy of mail dated 21.11.2013

P4     - Acknowledgement given by opposite party

P5     - Copy of cash receipt voucher dated 05.12.2012

P6     - Copy of advocate notice dated 07.01.2013

P7     - Copy of reply notice dated 19.01.2013

P8     - Copy of first page of the passport

P9     - Relevant page of the passport in which visa is stamped

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb