In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.236/2012.
1) Kalyan Kumaar Biswas,
2) Bharati Biswas,
Both of 10, MandevilleGardens, Flat-709,
Kolkata-19, P.S. Gariahat. ---------- Complainants
---Versus---
1) M/s. Cox & Kings Ltd.
6, Little Russel Street,
Kolkata-71, P.S. Park Street. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 16 Dated 30-08-2013.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that o.p. advertised in The Telegraph, Kolkata, page t-2 – 7 on 23.4.12 for Group Tours to Spain & Portugal (11-N / 12-D) – departure date 17.5.12. On the same day booking was made on payment of booking fees and visa processing fees to the Kolkata office of o.p. Thereafter on 25.4.12, passports, bank account statement, I.T. returns and other relevant papers were collected from the residence of the complainants by o.p. for visa. O.p. had taken the responsibility for visa and cost was charged from the complainants.
O.p. asked complainants over phone to make balance amount of payment. Payments were made on 3.5.12 and 13.5.12 amounting to Rs.3,07,170/- was paid to o.p. for both of the complainants, as cost of the tour (for 2 persons). The payment of total amount of Rs.3,07,170/- was not disputed by o.p. vide answer to Q. 9 dt.5.3.13 submitted by o.p. as well as para 16 of evidence by o.p. dt.5.2.13.
Terms and conditions signed by complainants and the w/v filed by o.p. dt.27.9.12 at pages marked 27 to 37 related to far east, Australia, New Zeeland Exotic journey’s. No booking condition for Spain & Portugal Tour was produced by o.p. or ever signed by complainants. No legible copy or the bold printing of the booking conditions for Spain & Portugal tour signed by complainants could be produced by o.p. Therefore, exclusive jurisdiction at Mumbai as claimed by o.p. is not legally tenable. In terms of Sec 11 of C.P. Act, 1986 as amended, complaint can be filed where the o.p. carries on business or has a branch office.
Further, o.p. with ulterior motive acted in a most negligent manner in filing the visa applications. Visa applications were filed without annexing documents required by the Spanish Consulate.
On 16.5.12 at 6-30 p.m. just few hours before the journey, when complainants rushed to their office we were shocked to hear that they cannot avail of the tour as complainants’ visa had not arrived. Immediately complainants submitted a letter claiming full refund of the money. The passports were returned to complainants by o.p. only on 25.5.12 with Memo issued by the Spanish Consulate that complainants’ visa was refused for the reason ‘Justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not provided’.
The Embassy had stated “that in the applications of Mr. Kalyan Kumar Biswas and Mrs. Bharati Biswas, the documents to justify their purpose of visit to Spain were not presented. The itenary and flight tickets submitted along with the applications did not have the names of the applicant mentioned on it”. Names of the complainants were not available in the list of passengers and air ticket submitted to the Embassy by o.p. as evidenced from annex-C1, C2 & C3.
O.p. cannot deny their responsibility in this regard when they had charged visa processing fees as well as taken the passport and other documents from the complainants. The printed tour programme issued by o.p. annexed at page 41 of the evidence on behalf of o.p. dt.5.2.13 as well as e-mail of o.p. dt.19.6.12 annexed page 54 of the said evidence dt.5.2.13 clearly shows that charges for visa was collected by o.p. from the complainants.
On 19.6.12 o.p. had sent an e-mail stating that after deducting cancellation charges @ Rs.44,397/- per person they would refund the balance amount (vide page 53 to 55 of w/v submitted by o.p. on 27.9.12). O.p. had offered to refund Rs.2,18,376/- out of Rs.3,07,170/- (for 2 persons). But till date o.p. had not made any refund. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.p. had sufficient deficiency in service being service provider to its consumers / complainants and complainants are entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,07,170/- (Rupees three lakhs seven thousand one hundred seventy) only towards the amount paid by complainants to o.p. and is further directed to pay to the complainants compensation of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
