DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 96/2015
Date of Institution : 21.05.2015
Date of Decision : 23.11.2015
Chamak Singla S/o. Tarsem chand Singla resident of H. No.B-13 B-13-1684(A) Street No. 3, Lakhi Colony, Barnala District Barnala.
Ankita Garg daughter of Surinder Kumar now wife of Chamak Singla s/o Tarsem Chand Singla resident of H.No. B-13 -1684 (A) , Street No. 3, Lakhi colony, Barnala District Barnala.
Versus
Complainant
M/s. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. , S.C.O. No. 16-17, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg Chandigarh-160009, through its Branch Manager .
M/s Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Thomas Cook Building, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001 through its Managing Director.
M/s Thomas Cook ( India) Ltd., Shop No. 1, 2nd, First Floor, RS Tower, 107/1, Hall Bazar, Amritsar-143001 through its Branch Manager.
ICICI Bank, College Road, Old Bus Stand Market, Barnala through its Branch Manager.
Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. R.K. Singla Counsel for complainants.
Sh. A.K. Jindal Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 3.
O.P-4 exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(BY Ms. VANDNA SIDHU, MEMBER):
This is the compliant no. 96/15 . As per complainant both husband wife are complainants , who got married on dated 2-3- 2014 . After marriage due to domestic circumstances the complainants could not go for outing . After query for the Europe tour by the complainant and on 22-1-2015 opposite party sent detailed tour programme assuring Guaranteed Departure and cost of tour was said to be RS. 61,000/- per person for a tour of 6 day which included all air fare charges and hotel facility providing etc. and also asked for a deposit amount of Rs. 10,000/- as booking amount for each person . The opposite party no. 1 to 3 to run their business .Earlier compliant filed a compliant no. 90/15 which was with draw on 13 -5 -2015. with a permission to file fresh on the same cause of action , permission was granted by the above stated Hon'ble Forum. Complainant paid a sum of Rs . 20000/- as booking amount on dated 30-1-2015 and after that their departure date is 15-4-2015 and on the request of complainants their departure time was re-sheduled on 26-3-2015. Thereafter the opposite parties asked the complainants to deposit an amount of Rs. 98000/- in their account in the ICICI bank Barnala branch in their A/C no. oo8205003158 and the same were deposited by the complainants at Barnala on 20-2-2015. Thereafter , Rs. 7484/- were paid to the opposite parties on dated 21-2-2015 The opposite parties have told the complainants that they are taking all the amount in advance as security for providing services and in any case visa is not confirmed the whole of amount will refunded with interest thereon .
2. Complainants got a call from Czech Republic visa office Delhi for an interview on dated 4-3-2015. On this the complainants asked the opposite parties about interview as the opposite parties have never informed the complainants about any type of interview . The opposite parties replied that the said interview is just an eye wash as they have all the settings and the complainants should go for interview and mark present as it is only a formality. The visa authorities at the office asked the complainants about lodging arrangements,the complainant replied that they are going through the opposite parties i.e. Thomas Cook and all the arrangements have been done by the opposite parties. Dissatisfied with the reply of the complainants the visa authority refused visa to the complainants on the following Grounds
(i)Justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not provided .
(ii) The information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable. The said information was given by the opposite parties vide their email letter dated 16-3-2015. The opposite parties also provided the reasons for the rejection of visa by the visa authority. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainants were not given visa due to the fault /mistake of the opposite parties as they did not supply the details of hotel booking and lodging arrangements during the tour.
(iii) On 23-3-2015 the complainant asked the opposite parties to supply the detail of booking of the tickets plus hotel booking coupen immediately so that the complainants may solve the problem on their own so they do not have much time left . The opposite parties put to supply the detail of booking of the tickets plus hotel booking coupon immediately so that the complainants may solve the problem on their own so they do not have much time left. The opposite party put on hold the complainants on one pretext and ultimately told the complainants that their tickets have been canceled. It is pertinent to mention here that tickets cannot be purchased until/ unless visa is confirmed. So ,the tickets were purchased by the opposite parties before confirmation of visa is unfaire trade practice and deficiency in service. The opposite parties deposited an amount of Rs.14,000/- in account of the complainant without consent . The complainant asked the opposite parties to refund the whole of the amount but the opposite parties avoided the complainants on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to refund the money . Hence this compliant.
The act of the opposite parties is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice.
Relief claimed that directions may be issued to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 1,11,484/-. along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization . Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses .Rs. 1,00000/- as mental agony and harassment Jurisdiction that the complainants received tour programme at Barnala and deposited Rs. 98,000/- in ICICI bank at Barnala ,Distt. Barnala hence this jurisdiction . Complainant prayed for acceptance of the compliant.
3. Upon notice to opposite party , opposite party no. 1 to 3 taken the objections interalia that the above stated complaint is not maintainable , as the averments made there in do not substantiate any willful fault , imperfection , short -coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or were undertaken to be performed by the answering opposite party in pursuance to its contract with the complainants or otherwise in relation to the service provided to its contract with the complainants or otherwise in relation to the service provided by the answering opposite parties. The complainants have already unconditional received the refund amount Rs. 14000/- in full and final settlement of their claim and thus the privity of contract and relationship of consumer and Service provider has come to an end. The instant compliant is liable to be rejected at the outset on this ground alone. Opposite party no. 2 is reputed company with its Head office at Mumbai and one of the branch offices at Chandigarh , which has been arrayed as opposite party no.1 . The complainants approached the answering opposite parties and evinced their interest in booking a group packed tour for Europe . The complainants were duly explained and made aware that the answering opposite parties offer several kind of travel related services like fully customized individual tours, where in individual services like air travel ,hotel booking etc. are organized only for the particular client and the same time it organizes group packaged tours. Wherein all services are pre-arranged for fixed departures to particulars destinations for a minimum numbers of person ; who have to travel strictly in accordance with the group itinerary and as part of the group . Although such group tours are usually more economical in comparison to individual booking, however the same are governed by certain terms and conditions . The complaints have not disclosed the terms and conditions which were duly signed and accepted by them after fully understanding the contents there of . It was duly explained to the complainants and particularly mentioned in the terms and conditions which are in fact a part of the booking form , that although the answering opposites offer assistance and guidance to its clients to apply for the required visa /for undertaking a particular tour , however the ultimate responsibility of having the requisite visa for undertaking a particular tour on a given departure date is of the passenger and that grant or rejection of visa is entirely at the discretion of the concerned consulate /authorities who may in their discretion grant visa to some passengers and refuse the same to others It is clearly dislcosed to the complainants and is mentioned in the governing contract that the answering opposite parties will not all be liable for the rejection of visa and in case of cancellation die to visa rejection the applicable cancellation charges would be levied . The instant compliant has been filed to escape the payment of the genuineness cancellation charges agreed between the parties and is thus not maintainable . Without prejudice to the fact that the instant compliant is not maintainable on the other grounds mentioned herein, the complainants have wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum. The tour was booked by them through the Chandigarh branch, while all bookings of the tour were contracted and monitored from the Mumbai Head office .(O.P.) No. 2. Opposite party no. 3 is also a branch office of opposite party no.2 , however the said branch office did not directly with the complainants and only the address of the branch was mentioned on the payment receipts issued to the answering complainants. To the knowledge of the complainants the answering opposite parties do not have any office /branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum, and they have not acquiesced in the institution of the complaint. Complainants not come in this forum with clean hands and have deliberately not disclosed the complete and true facts in the compliant,and thus the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits it is submitted that, the complainants were duly explained the salient features of tour and especially the fact that the responsibility to have the necessary tour and especially documents like passports on the departure date would be that of the tour participants and although the opposite parties provide assistance in applying for the visa to all its customers, it would be responsible for the same. The departure date , cost ,payment schedule , terms,booking form including the terms and conditions and all other details were duly communicated . It is denied that departure date was guaranteed . The complainants initially deposited Rs. 20,000/- through the on line payment link in the account of opposite parties .It is vehemently denied that opposite party as collection center of the opposite parties The opposite parties do not have an account in the Barnala branch of ICICI bank. The complainants have deliberately tried to mislead this Hon'ble Forum and should be put to strict proof . It is also submitted by the opposite parties that the complainant were not informed doubt the possibility of interview or that the same is an eye wash , formality etc. The complainants were fully aware that the answering opposite party is a reputed tour organizer providing basic assistance and information about the tour and are not Visa agents who guarantee the grant of visa . False and concocted averments have been made with a malafide intent by the complainants . Although the exact details of the interview are never disclosed by the consulate , however it is pertinent to mention here that the consulate takes independent decision based on the individual profile of the tour participants even if they are traveling on the same tour organized by the same tour organizer . The visa of the complainants was refused while the same consulate granted visa to other participants who appeared for the on interview on the same day , although all details and assistance provided by the answering opposite parties were same . The information about the rejection of visa was duly communicated to the complainants initially through phone and as per their request through email and the passports and refusal letter were handed over physically . It is specifically denied that complainants were not granted visas due to any fault or mistake of the answering opposite parties . Opposite parties also submitted that the opposite parties refunded amount of Rs. 14000/- was deposited in the account of of complainant no.1. without consent . To the contrary , the complainant accepted the same without any condition as full and final settlement of the complainants claim . The initial demand of the complainants for the full refund were absolutely unjustified and later on after voluntarily accepting the refund amount , have unnecessarily foisted litigation upon the answering opposite parties only with a view to coerce them to pay money. Opposite parties made request to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
4. In Support of complaint , complainants submitted Ex. -C1 affidavit of Chamak Singla , Ex. C2. Copy of offer letter , copy of letter of acceptance of Rs. 20,000/, Ex. C-3 copy of letter of acceptance ,Ex. -C4.copy of email dated 29-1-2015 , Ex.C5and C6 copy of tour package , Ex. C7 to C9 copy of receipts , Ex. -C10 copy of booking acknowledge , Ex.- C11copy of booking form , Ex. -C 12 copy of visa terms and conditions ,Ex. -C13 and C14. copy of refusal letter, Ex. C-15 copy of deficiency letter , Ex. C-16 to C- 27 and close evidence .
5. To rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties tendered into evidence Ex. Op.1 -2-3/1 affidavit of Ms. Rupa Bhardwaj, Ex.- Op.1.23/2 copy of advertisement , Ex. O.p.123/3 copy of highlights , Ex.- O.p.1.2.3/4 copy of terms and conditions, Ex. O.P.1-2-3/5 copy of booking acknowledgment form , Ex.- O.P.1.2.3./6 & O.P.1-2-3/7 Ex.- O.P.1.2.3/8 copy of PAN card email communication , Ex. O.P.1.2.3./10 copy of ticket booking of Chamak singla, Ex.-O.P.1.2.3/11 copy of Ticket Booking of Ankita, Ex.- O.P.1-2-3/12 to 14 copy of passport and visa copy of co -passenger ,Ex.- O.P.1-2-3/15 copy of leisure Trend system Ex.- O.P. 1-2-3/16 copy of hand over sheet dated 4.4.2015.
6. After perusal the entire record minutely and hearing arguments of both the parties we came on this conclusion that as per Ex.C-1 i.e. affidavit of Chamak Singla son of Tersem Chand and Ankita wife of Chamak Singla resident of Barnala paid Rs. 20,000/- as booking amount on dated 30.1.2015 and after that there departure date is 15.4.2015 and on the request of the complainants their departure time was re-scheduled on 26.3.2015. Thereafter, the complainants deposited Rs. 98,000/- in the account of 008205003158 in the ICICI Bank Barnala on 20.2.2015. Thereafter, Rs. 7484/- were paid to the opposite parties on 21.2.2015 and the abvoe stated huge amount taken by the opposite parties as security for providing services and given information in any case visa is not confirmed the whole amount will refunded with interest thereon. So, by this way, as per Ex.C-3 opposite parties received Rs. 20,000/- and as per Ex.C-7, which is the deposit slip in favour of or in the account of Thomas Cook Limited i.e. Rs. 98,000/-, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 which are the duplicate receipts by opposite parties against the amount which is received by opposite parties in record of the above said tour. So,the preliminary objection by the opposite parties and objection on merits in regard of jurisdiction to try the above stated complaint by this Forum, is totally vague and useless. As per our opinion opposite parties received amount and sent Ex. C-3 AND Ex. C-7 shows the transaction amount is completed at Barnala. So, this Forum has fully jurisdiction to try this complaint as per Section 11, The Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, opposite parties never handed over terms and conditions and they also did not supply the details of hotel booking and lodging arrangements during the tour. It is pertinent to mention here that as per complaint the complainant asked the opposite parties on 23.3.2015 to supply the detail of booking of tickets plus hotel booking coupon immediately, so that the complainant may solve the problem on their own because the period was very short. The opposite parties did not pay their attention. After that it was intimated by the opposite parties to complainant that the tickets were cancelled. But as per complaint, complainants mentioned that tickets cannot be purchased by the opposite parties until visa is confirmed. So, no doubt the tickets purchased by the opposite parties before confirmed the visa is unfair trade practice. Ex.C-12 which is elaborate about under heading TOURIST VISA FOR CZECH REPUBLIC DELHI. It is clearly mentioned in it that applicant should not purchase their ticket before their visa is approved where proof of tickets issued is not listed in the checklist as a mandatory document to be provided with the application. Neither the consulate nor Thomas Cook takes any responsibility for any ticket purchased by the applicant without a visa being issued. So, it is clear cut negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Further, Ex.C-16 of dated 16.3.2015 also clears where it was intimated to complainant that as per Telecoms of opposite parties the Schengen Visa has been rejected. Again opposite parties intimated to complainant that this is being taken by them with the embassy as the reasons given very general. So, Ex.C-16 shows that complainant was misguided by the opposite parties in regard of general reasons about rejecting visa by the embassy. As per Ex.C-16 again Chamak Singla did effort about their new date of tour arrangements or refund money. As per Ex.C-17 of dated 19.3.2015, this Forum assumed that really its shock able intimation by opposite parties that before doing any effort about query in regard of rejecting visa. They mentioned in Ex.C-17 that the cancellation levied on this tour is INR 55,000/-/per person as the air tickets were issued and all the services were confirmed. In reply of the above stated Email by the company, complainant wrote down that conversation on phone in case of rejection of visa and deduction amount will be only visa fees and rest amount will be refunded to the complainant. Complainant also described in Ex.C-17 that during conversation with Czech he inquired about air tickets and airline service provider, but nothing was conveyed to him by opposite parties and he also explained that rejection of visa is not the fault of complainant and in this conversation by Email complainant had also taken objections about deduction amount. But in spite of communication by Emails to the opposite parties, opposite parties did not pay any attention towards requests of complainant and objections of complainant and they deduct a huge amount i.e. Total deduction Rs. 55,000/- *2 = 1,10,000/- and its really a very shock able unfair trade practice that they refunded only Rs. 14,000/- to complainants. So, it is a very gross negligence and deficiency in service as per 2(g) and unfair trade practice also which is adopted by opposite parties under section 2(r). So, it is true fact after considering the arguments the total package was a formality and eye wash. It is a very amazing fact that in version which is filed by the opposite parties it is clear cut submitted by them that opposite parties are not visa agents, who guarantee the grant of visa. But as per Ex.C-28 only refunded amount is paid to complainant.
7. In view of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is maintainable and allowed with amount i.e. Rs. 96,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Litigation expenses Rs. 3,000/- also be payable to complainant by the opposite parties. This order of ours shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion, be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
23rd Day of November, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member.
