Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

870/2009

G.Munendran - Complainant(s)

Versus

m/S. Cox & Kings India Ltd. ,Chief Executive Officer & another - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

15 Jun 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   29.09.2009

                                                                        Date of Order :   15.06.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO. 870/2009

THURSDAY THIS  15^TH  DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

G. Munendran,

Flat C-4, Block 1,

Jains Swarnakamal,

69 Arcot Road,

Saligramam,

Chennai 600 093.                                        .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

1.  M/s. Cox & Kings (India) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer,

Mr.Peter Kerkar,

Turner Morrison Building,

16 Bank Street, Fort,

Mumbai 400 001.

 

2. M/s. Cox & Kings (India) Ltd.,

Rep. by Mr. Shaliendra Jain,

No.10, Karunaa Corner,

Spur Tank Road, Chetpet,

Chennai 600 031.                                          .. Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant           :    Party in person    

Counsel for opposite party        :    M/s.S.Mothhillal & R. Prashanth     

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to refund the balance amount of Rs.65300/- along with interest  and to hand over the letter of rejection of visa and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  the opposite parties during April-May promoted a Tour called “EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE” 10 to 11 days starting at various dates ex-Mumbai and ex-Chennai.   In this connection the opposite parties representative one Mr. Jitto through the reference he got from Mrs. Sujatha Narayanan, contacted the complainant and his wife and to join the said tour.    When the complainant expressed the reservation over the possibility of getting UK visa and Schengen visa for availing the said tour, the opposite parties representative assured him.  The complainant also paid entire tour amount including necessary visa application fees etc. of Rs.1,88,788/-  by way of HDFC Bank  cheques and credit card.  The complainant states  that the visa left few columns unfilled at the instance of the opposite parties.  

2.     Further the complainant states that contrary to the assurance of the opposite parties and to the shock of the complainant and his wife their visa applications have been rejected by the British Embassy and they have sent the reasons for rejection of visa applications of complainant and his wife to the office of the 2^nd opposite party, hence the complainant demanded the refund of the sum of Rs.1,88,788/- to the opposite parties.  The complainant also states that wherein forced to accept the  refund of Rs.1,23,488/- there is still a balance  of Rs.65,300/- to be refunded by the opposite parties as they have refunded only Rs.1,23,488/-.  Further the opposite parties are yet to hand over the rejection letter issued by the British Embassy which is imperative for complainant’s and his wife future travel plans.    As such the act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

 

3. The brief averments in Written Version of  the  1^st opposite party   and adopted by the 2^nd opposite party  are as follows:

         The opposite party denies all the averments made therein except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties did not hand over any application from to the complainant and his wife.   On the other hand, the complainant had approached the opposite parties through its travel agent, M/s. Parry Travels.  The opposite parties submit that  the opposite parties do not have any control nor give any assurance with regard to visa, as it is entirely in the hands of the respective Embassies.    It is denied that the opposite parties deliberately delayed in returning the complainant documents or the refusal letter given by the British Embassy.  It is also denied that  the opposite parties told the complainant and his wife not to bother about any delay in getting the visa.   The opposite parties state that the complainant and his wife tour was cancelled within the above said period as the opposite party received the visa rejection letter on 14 May 2009 from the UK Embassy.     The opposite parties further state that at this juncture, it would be pertinent to note that the tour cost paid by the complainant and his wife was Rs.1,88,788/-.  From this amount a sum of Rs.25,300/- was deducted towards U.K. Visa towards cancellation charges for the complainant and his wife.   Further from and out of balance sum, the complainant and his wife directed the opposite parties to adjust a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards tour cost of the family of Mr.A.P.Narayanan, who were to travel along with the complainant and his wife and who were going ahead with the tour since they were granted the U.K. visa.   Thus the opposite parties on the instructions of the complainant accordingly adjusted Rs.40,000/- and refunded the balance amount of Rs.1,23,488/- vide cheque.    Thus the complainant and his wife having received the above said sum of Rs.1,23,488/- as full and final settlement of the tour cost cannot hold the opposite parties liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice either in coordinating the U.K. visa application or any refund of the tour cost.    Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and no document marked on the side of the opposite parties and oral arguments let in.

 

5.   The points for the consideration is:  

 

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.65,300/- towards balance tour amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the opposite parties as prayed for ?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled the letter of visa rejection issued by the British Embassy with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as prayed for ?

 

 

6.     POINTS 1 & 2 :-

 

       Heard both sides, perused the records.   Admittedly the complainant joined the tour of the opposite parties through the travel agent M/s. Parry Travels and his representative Mr. Jitto as per the reference of Mrs. Sujatha Narayanan.   The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the said tour agency i.e. M/s. Parry Travels agency and the representative are not necessary in this case because the tour has been arranged by the opposite parties trough their wide advertisements.   The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that this case is bad for non joinder of necessary party M/s. Parry Travels and their representative.  The complainant has not denied that he joined the tour programme only through the said tour agent in M/s. Parry Travels  and paid money with the  Parry travels.    But it is seen from the records that the tour programme conducted by the opposite parties only.   Hence the non joinder of tour agent M/s. Parry Travel agent shall not vitiate the proceedings in this case.

7.    The complainant further contended that he joined the tour programme called “European Experience”  10 to 11 days and paid a sum of Rs.1,88,788/- by way of  various HDFC cheques and credit card is admitted.   Since the tour is related to European country UK visa and Schengen visa was required.  The contention of the complainant is that in the visa application he left few columns unfilled at the instance of the opposite parties but it is admitted in para-4 is itself.

“…..  the opposite parties handed over two sets application for visa, one for UK visa and another for Schengen visa and asked the complainant and his wife to fill up few columns as instructed by them and left few columns unfilled of the instance of the opposite parties …. 

Proves that the complainant and his wife has not filled up the visa application in full.   Equally it is seen from the written version para-9 that   “ Further it is submitted that on 14.5.2009, the opposite parties received visa rejection letter along with passport of the complainant and his wife from the U.K. Embassy.    From the said visa rejection letter, it appears that the reason for rejection of visa of complainant and  his wife, was that he had earlier faced visa rejection while applying for visiting U.S.A.   Under these circumstances the opposite parties cannot be blamed for such a rejection, as the British Authorities are entitled to pass their own judgments while processing visa applications  “is not denied by the complainant proves that the complainant have committed several latches in applying visa, and the said facts were totally suppressed by the complainant.   Since the visa was denied to the complainant and his wife,  the opposite parties refunded a sum of Rs.1,23,488/- after deducting a sum of Rs.25,300/- towards cancellation charges and  a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards tour cost given to Mr.A.P. Narayanan.    Further the complainant contended that the visa rejection letter and passport not reached to the complainant but it reached to the opposite parties’ office  is accepted in the written version also.  But neither the opposite parties nor the complainant chosen to file the said letter before this forum.    Since the visa application shall have the address of the complainant alone the office address of the opposite parties deserves no importance.   Further the complainant contended that due to non disclosure of rejection letter by the opposite parties the complainant sustained very great mental agony, hence the complainant is claiming compensation for Rs.5 lakhs. 

8.       The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant and his wife applied for UK visa and Schengen visa it was duly rejected by the Embassy,  since the complainant has suppressed the real fact of refusal of visa by USA.   At no point of time the opposite parties guaranteed for getting down visa to the complainant.  The complainant and his wife alone filled up application form and submitted before Embassy and attended for interview.  The allegation that rejection visa letter along with passport has been reached to the opposite parties is not acceptable because all the records like passport shall be accompanied by such rejection letter and it will be send to the applicant address.   The complainant also not claiming any refund pass port but claiming only a rejection letter establishes that the complainant himself received the letter.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that admittedly a sum of  Rs.1,23,488/- has been refunded to the complainant after deducting the cancellation of charges of Rs.25,300/-and a sum of Rs.40,000/- given to A.P. Narayanan.  The complainant suppressed the fact  of USA visa and cancellation charges and amount given to A.P. Narayanan admitted in Ex.A11 and claiming a sum of Rs.65300/- is ridiculous; even though the opposite parties are agreed to pay a sum of  Rs.40,000/- to the complainant the amount received by A.P. Narayanan.  The contention of the complainant is that severe mental agony caused due to the rejection of visa cannot be acceptable because already the complainant was refused the visa to USA.   The compensation of Rs.5 lakhs claimed by the complainant is imaginary and exorbitant.  Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards balance amount with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint i.e. 29.9.2009 to till the date of this order (i.e.) 15.6.2015 and also compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/-.   The point is answered accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is  allowed in part.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally to liable to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) towards balance amount   along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint  i.e. 29.9.2009  to till the date of this order i.e. 15.6.2017  and also compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards mental agony and also cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The above  amount shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.       

Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  15^th  day  of  June 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1- 24.4.2009  - Copy of statement on cost of European Tour.

Ex.A2- 24.4.2009  - Copy of Email from the opposite parties.

Ex.A3- 25.4.2009  - Copy of Axis bank charge slip showing payment to

                               Opposite party.

Ex.A4- 25.4.2009  - Copy of receipts issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A5- 27.4.2009  - Copy of bank statement

Ex.A6- 18.5.2009  - Copy of email from the opposite party.

Ex.A7- 20.5.2009  - Copy of email of the complainant.

Ex.A8- 25.5.2009  - Copy of email of the complainant.

Ex.A9- 17.7.2009  - Copy of IDBI cheque No.396518 of the opposite party

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   

..Nil..

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.