Haryana

Karnal

56/14

Sh. Mohit Madan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shubh Yatra Tour & Trevels - Opp.Party(s)

M.K.Bhendari

22 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.56 of 2014

                                                         Date of instt. 05.03.2014

                                                         Date of decision:22.02.2018

 

Mohit Madan son of Shri Ashok Madan, resident of House no.384, Sector 14, Karnal.                                                                                                                                                …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. M/s Shubh Yatra Tour & Travels, SCO 128, Mugal Canal, Karnal-132001 through its proprietor.

2. Kuom Travel Pvt. Ltd., SCO 147-148, Level 1^st, near Sindhi Sweets, above LG Showroom, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms. Veena Rani…….Member

      Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

             

 

 Present  Shri M.R.Bhandari Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Vishal Turan Advocate for OP no.1

               Shri Gagan Sehgal Advocate for OP no.2

               

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant want to take his family to abroad during the summer vacation of children in the month of June, 2013 and for that he met with the OP. OP told the complainant to opt package for Europe delight tour and OP provided package for five nights and six days including lodging and barding for the said tour and complainant agree for the same. Thereafter, OP started completing the formalities at their office. The OP asked the complainant to deposit Rs.2,06,000/-. Complainant deposited the same. The OP informed the complainant that the tour to be started with respect from 12.6.2013. OP informed the complainant through telephonically that visa of the complainant has been refused as the complainant also received a letter through the OP which was issued by France Embassy on 6.6.2013 in which it was mentioned that the visa of the complainant has been refused and the reason regarding the refused were mentioned vide column no.2 and 8 of the said letter. Thereafter, complainant requested the OP for return of the money but OP flatly refused to refund the same. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.1.2014 to the OP in that regard but to no effect. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties and concealments of facts. The true facts are that the complainant himself written a letter to SOTC, Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt. Limited company and the SOTC has given the reply to the effect that since Visa has been refused on closed date so, cancellation liability is more which is Rs.80,000/- per person+ Air Ticket+ Visa and SOTC Company have only Rs.50,000/- per person i.e. Rs.2,00,000/-. So, the company has to bear loss of Rs.30,000/- per person, because your pass port validity has been completed on 17.9.2013 as per the Rules there must be nine months validity prior to tour package. The complainant himself submitted a fresh pass-port on 3.6.2013 i.e. very late so, the Visa has been refused by the Franch Embassy. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP2 appeared and filed its separate written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; complaint hopelessly barred by limitation and concealments of true and material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant had opted for a Group Package Tour marketed as “European Delights” which was organized by Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd. having its registered head office at Mumbai. It is further submitted that the total cost of the tour in question amounted to Rs.3,13,189/- which included INR and Euro component of the tour cost as duly communicated to the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant was required to pay the full tour cost 45 days prior to departure including the foreign exchange component at the prevailing rate of exchange existing on the date of actual payment. However, the complainant merely paid an amount of Rs.2,06,000/- which was only  60% of the total tour cost, in breach of contractual obligations, which he failed to fulfill. It is further submitted that the complainant’s passport was about to expire on 17.9.2013 and the complainant submitted his passport for renewal. Infact, the complainant delayed the submission of documents to the respective embassy/ consulate for processing of the visa application which may have been one of the reasons for rejection of the visa. It is further submitted that complainant was fully aware that all the services of the tour were pre booked and cancellation of the tour due to non-availability of the requisite visa would entail cancellation charges as mentioned in the terms and conditions and how to book rules which comprised the governing contract between the parties. The complainant was fully aware that cancellation of the tour barely 6 days prior to the date of departure would entail 100% cancellation charges of the total tour cost despite the same, the OP reduces the cancellation charges of Rs.80,000/- per person plus applicable taxes. The complainant has filed the present complaint to escape his legal obligation. In fact the complainant is liable to pay Rs.1,07,189/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of cancellation of the tour. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 4.1.2018.

5.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Munish Kumar, prop. Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.OP1/A to Ex.OP1/P,  Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/10 and closed the evidence on 24.7.2015 and  2.2.2018.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence le by the parties.

7.             It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has filed written arguments. It is stated in the written arguments that the complainant opted a package for Europe delight tour with the OPs and the OP provided package for six days including lodging and boarding. On the asking of the OPs, the complainant deposited Rs.2,06,000/- in three installments. After depositing abovesaid amount, the OPs informed that the tour is to be started from 12.6.2013 and the OP assured that complainant would not face any difficulty during the course of journey. It is further stated that OP informed the complainant telephonically that his visa has been refused and the complainant also received a letter Ex.C-4 through OP which was issued by French Embassy on 6.6.2013 in which the reason regarding refusal was mentioned in column no.2 and 8 of the said letter. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP no.1 and requested to return the money given in advance but the OP no.1 flatly refused to refund the same. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.1.2014 but the OP no.1 did not refund the amount. It is further stated that the issuing of visa is concerned with the French Embassy and the OP & complainant has no role in it. It was obligatory and mandatory on the part of the OP to refund the said amount because it was kept as a security of the tour.

8.             The version of OP no.1 is that OP no.1 has not informed the complainant about refusal of visa and the said information was sent by the SOTC company directly to the complainant as per policy. The complainant has sent his complaint to the SOTC company and same was replied by the SOTC company.

9.             According to OP no.2, the complaint is barred by limitation as OP no.2 was added as OP party on 18.1.2017. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. It is further the case of the OP no.2 that the Group Package are governed by cancellation policies, which were duly mentioned in the Booking Form. How to Book Rules and Brochures, which were explained and supplied to the complainant. The complainant booked the package after understanding the terms and condition. It is further case of the OP no.2 that OP no.2 received only Rs.2 lakhs vide receipt dated 12.4.2013, 26.4.2013 and 28.5.2013. The total cost of the tour in question was Rs.3,13,189/- but the complainant has paid only Rs.2,06,000/- whereas the complainant was required to pay full tour cost 45 days prior to departure and the complainant has breached the contractual obligations. Despite this breach, the OP booked and confirmed all services like air tickets, hotel etc. apart from payment of visa application fee. The complainant was aware that the responsibility of holding valid travel documents like passport and visas is that of tour participants themselves. The answering OP merely provides basic assistance in forwarding the visa applications to the respective consulates and had no role in visa process. The passport of complainant was to expire on 17.9.2013 and complainant submitted his passport for renewal. The complainant delayed in submission of documents to the respective embassy, which may have been one of the reason for rejection of visa. The cancellation of tour was 6 days prior to the date of departure which would entail 100% cancellation charges of the total tour cost. The complainant has paid only Rs.2,06,000/- only and is liable to pay remaining cancellation charges amounting to Rs.1,07,189/- with interest @ 18% per annum and the present complaint is filed to escape from this payment.

 10.          From the above, it is clear that the complainant has opted the package for Europe  Delight Tour with the OPs for six days and the complainant deposited Rs.2,06,000/- vide receipt Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. The tour was to be started from 12.6.2013. As the visa of the complainant has been refused, the complainant demanded the above amount deposited by him but the OPs have refused to refund the same. According to OP no.2 the group packages are covered by the cancellation policy which were duly mentioned in the booking form, which were duly explained to the complainant at the time of booking for the package. The OP no.2 has referred the terms and conditions “how to book your holiday” Ex.OP2/1 and stated that it was the responsibility of the complainant to hold valid documents such as passport, visa and confirmed air ticket. The obtaining of viaa is the responsibility of complainant as the visa has been declined, the complainant could not attend the package tour. The cost of the tour in question was Rs.3,13,189/- and the complainant has deposited only Rs.2,06,000/-. According to the terms and conditions which were fully explained to the complainant, the cancellation require 100% cancellation charges of the total tour cost.  It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has not alleged in his complaint or in his argument that the terms and conditions were not told and explained to him. These facts clearly indicate that the complainant know the terms and conditions of the package of the tour in question. According to terms and conditions the OPs have right to claim the cancellation charges. From these facts it can be presumed that the present complaint might has been filed by the complainant with a view to escape his legal obligation to pay the remaining cancellation charges. The complainant alleged that the amount was deposited as security but no such evidence has been produced by the complainant on the file. To prove his case the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence vide which it can be said that he is entitled for the entire deposited amount. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove his case and any  deficiency on the part of the OPs.

12.           In view of the above discussion, we found no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 22.02.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Veena Rani)        (Anil Sharma)

                        Member                 Member