Date of Filing: 11.02.2020. Date of Disposal: 12.04.2022.
Complainant :Dr. Chakradhar Maji, S/O Late Anadinath Maji, Vill.& P.O. Bahula,
P.S. Andal, Dist. Paschim Bardhaman. Pin 713322.
-VERSUS -
Opposite Party :1. M/S Sotc Travel Limited, 10, Wood Street, 2nd Floor, Room No. 10 & 11,
Behind Camac Street, Pantaloon Showroom, Kolkata-700016.
2. M/S Sotc Travel Limited, Having its Regd. Office at 324, Dr. D. N. Road,
Fort, Mumbai-400001.
3. M/S Durgapur Travellers Club, G-16, Block-IV, Commercial Estate, City
Centre, Durgapur-16, P.S. Durgapur, Dist. Paschim Bardhaman, 713216.
Present : Mohammad Muizzuddeen -Hon’ble President.
: Shri Sailaranjan Das - Hon’ble Member.
Appeared for the Complainant : Sri Krishnendu Paul, Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the Opposite Party : Sri Megha Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate.
Order No. 22 Date: 12.04.2022.
Today is fixed for passing order. Both sides file hazira through their Ld. Advocates.
The record is taken up for passing order.
On 11.02.2020 the complainant has filed an application for appointment of expert of Japanese Language Interpreter under Sec. 13(3) of Consumer Protection Act, on the ground that the main documents upon which the entire issue of dispute was relied on, is the rejection endorsement of Japanese Consulate over the passport of the complainant and his wife and the said documents have been filed with the complaint as well as the written evidence. The complainant has already interpreted that the matter but to contemplate that further and for proper adjudication of the dispute, it needs to be further interpreted with an expert by appointing an expert Japanese Language knowing person. This petition is supported by an affidavit.
The OPs did not file any written objection against this application dt. 11.02.2020, filed by the complainant which has been registered as MA/30/2020.
Perused the complaint, Written Version and the Xerox copies of the documents, in question. The complainant in his written complaint has focused on the point that the entire fault for non-processing of VISA application or for rejection of VISA application for the second time lies on the OPs as due to their negligent act VISA application was rejected, though he has filed all relevant documents for the same. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 in their written version submitted that the OPs informed the complainant and his wife about the requirements which the complainant and his wife submitted before the authority for issuance of VISA. However, the Visa of the complainant and his wife were rejected by the Embassy on 21.03.2018 on the ground that due to “insufficient documents” and the granting or rejecting of Visa is the sole discretion of the concerned Consulate/Authority and the OPs have nothing to say in it whatsoever. Copy of the Visa rejection letter is annexed and marked as Annexure “B”.
From this submission of both sides, it is clear that the Visa application was rejected by the concerned Consulate or Authority. On the basis of the said factum of rejection of Visa, the complainant has lodged this case to the effect that due to negligent act of the OPs, Visa application was rejected, which should be adjudicated in this case.
OP Nos. 1 & 2 also admitted that the Visa application was rejected due to “Insufficient Documents” and it is the sole discretion of the Consulate or Authority concerned. When the both sides admitted that the Visa application was rejected and whether the said rejection was negligent act of the OPs or it is the sole discretion of the concerned Consulate/Authority that should be adjudicated in this case on the basis of the evidence of both sides. When the factum of rejection is admitted by both the sides, then the question of appointment of an expert of Japanese Language Interpreter does not arise.
It is also evident from the record that the evidence from the side of the complainant has been completed but the evidence on the side of the OP is pending.
Under the above facts and circumstances, the prayer for appointment of expert of Japanese Language Interpreter is hereby rejected on contest without any order as to cost.
Let the case be fixed for evidence-on-affidavit on the side of the OPs.
To 10.06.2022 for evidence-on-affidavit by the OPs.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the Misc. Application bearing No. MA/30/2020 be and the same is rejected on contest in view of the above findings but without any order as to cost.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.
Member President
D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman. D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman
