DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.559 of 2016
Date of institution: 07.09.2016 Date of decision : 21.11.2017
Manjit Singh son of late Shri Lal Singh, aged 55 years, resident of House No.1160, Phase-X, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Make My Trip India Pvt. Limited, Tower A, SP Infocity, 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana 122016.
2. Managing Director, M/s Make My Trip India Pvt. Limited, Tower A, SP Infocity, 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana 122016
…..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person
Shri Naveen Sharma, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Manjit Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant had booked a package for 12 nights and 13 days of "European Bonanza" for two persons including his wife through online on 02.06.2016 with the OP. The total cost of the Tour package was fixed as Rs.3,90,000/- and the complainant deposited Rs.1,95,000/- as demanded by the OPs through internet banking on 02.06.2016. Initially, the officials of the OPs told the complainant that they themselves complete all the Visa Formalities but after receiving the payment they told the complainant to get in contact with one Mr. Anup Rawat for Visa Assistance. As per the guidance of said Mr. Anup Rawat, the complainant completed all the formalities and applied for Visa to the Italian Embassy and deposited a sum of Rs.11,600/- as Visa Fee. But on 20.06.2016 the complainant received a letter from Italian Embassy regarding refusal of the Visa on the ground that justification for purpose and conditions of the intending stay was not provided. After refusal of the Visa, the complainant requested the OPs to refund the booking amount of Rs.1,95,000/- but the OPs refused to refund the full amount and they only refunded Rs.65,000/- out of the deposited amount of Rs.1,95,000/-. The complainant so many times requested the OPs to refund the remaining amount of Rs.1,30,000/- but they refused to do so. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum; Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint, they raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in its present form; the present complaint filed by the complainant on mere conjectures and surmises; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and the present complaint is without cause of action against the OPs. As regard the facts of the case, the OPs stated that the complainant visited the website of the OPs on 02.06.2016 and booked a package of "European Bonanza" for two persons. The OPs duly generated the booking as desired by the complainant. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- against the outstanding amount of Rs.3,42,513/-. The complainant made all the entries online and there remains no human interference from the side of OPs. Thereafter in order to start processing for the Visa, the OPs sent a letter to the Italian Embassy on 13.06.2016 and requested to issue the Tourist Visa. The rest of the processes are Bi metric and the complainant has to complete the rest of the process. The complainant has to produce all the necessary documents to be filled with application for the Visa and also explained the same to the complainant on every call as and when made by him. The complainant and the OPs are hereby bound by the booking terms and conditions and according to the clauses of the terms and conditions; it has been specifically provided that OPs merely works as a facilitator in applying for the Visa process. The ultimate authority to grant a Visa lies with the Embassy and OPs would in no circumstance shall be held liable for any acts of the Embassy. Thus, there remains no deficiency on the part of the OPs in the present dispute. The OPs had refunded Rs.65,000/- to the complainant after deducting its applicable cancellation charges. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/1, copies of package Ex. C-1, receipt Ex. C-2, letter Ex. C-3, letters regarding refusal of Visa Ex. C-4 and Ex. C-5, accounts statement Ex. C-6 and email Ex. C-7. In rebuttal the counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Ankita, Assistant Manager Legal Ex. OP1/1, copies of board resolution dated 04.01.2016 Ex. OP-1 and terms and conditions Ex. OP-2.
5. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments submitted by the complainant.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had booked the European Bonanza for two persons with the OPs for 12 nights and 13 days through online on 02.06.2016. The total cost of the tour package was fixed as Rs.3,90,000/-. The OPs vide e-mail dated 02.06.2016 Ex.C-2 had acknowledged receipt of part payment of Rs.1,95,000/- from the complainant towards the tour package. Thereafter, the OPs vide their letter dated 13.06.2016 Ex.C-3 sent the application of the complainant and his wife for European Bonanza Group Tour Summer 2016 (JD) departing on 07th July, 2016 to the Visa Officer, Embassy of Italy, Delhi. However, the visa of the complainant and his wife was rejected by the Italian Embassy on the ground that justification for purpose and conditions of the intending stay was not provided. The complainant had availed the services of the OPs for facilitating him and his wife for getting visa for European Bonanza Group Tour Summer 2016 (JD) departing on 07th July, 2016. The complainant his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 has stated that the officials of the OPs assured him that their company is world renowned company for arranging better tour and travelling packages and also assured to arrange all the paper formalities i.e. visa, air fair, boarding, lodging, breakfast, site seeing, coaches etc. The complainant has further deposed in his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 that after receiving payment, the officials told the complainant to get in contact with one Mr. Anup Rawat for visa assistance. Then as per the guidance of Mr. Anup Rawat, the complainant applied for visa to Italian Embassy and deposited Rs.11,600/- as visa fee. The OPs vide e-mail dated 30.05.2016 Ex.C-1 had informed the complainant that Gyan Gupta is the holiday planner and for any query the complainant was asked to contact Mr. Gyan Gupta. However, after receipt of payment on 02.06.2016, the OPs asked the complainant to contact Mr. Anup Rawat whereas as per Ex.C-1 Mr. Gyan Gupta was the Holiday Planner for the complainant and his wife. The OPs vide their letter dated 13th June, 2016 Ex.C-3 had requested the Visa Officer of Embassy of Italy, Delhi to issue necessary tourist visa to the complainant and his wife. However, the visa to the complainant and his wife was not granted on the ground of non providing justification for purpose and conditions of the intending stay. Once the complainant has availed the services of the OPs on the allurement that they are world renowned company for arranging better tour and travel packages and assured the complainant to arrange all paper formalities and the complainant made payment of Rs.1,95,000/-, it was the duty of the OPs to get the visa arranged for the complainant and his wife. However, the OPs failed to perform the duty for which it had received payment from the complainant. The OPs had refunded only Rs.65,000/- to the complainant on 20.07.2016 whereas they have admitted receipt of Rs.1,95,000/- from the complainant on 02.06.2016. Thus, failure of the OPs to arrange visa for the complainant is deficiency in service and further non refund of total amount received from the complainant is an act of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant deserves refund of balance amount of Rs.1,30,000/- alongwith interest w.e.f. 20.07.2016 i.e. from the date when the OPs refunded part payment of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant.
7. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs to refund Rs.1,30,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Thirty Thousand only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 20.07. 2016 till the actual date of refund. We also find that complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) on account of mental agony due to the negligent act of the OPs and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only). The present complaint stands allowed.
The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 21.11.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
