Delhi

New Delhi

CC/596/2013

Brij Mohan Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/596/13                                                                                                                                                                               Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Brij Mohan Mittal,

S/o late Sh. R.D Mittal,

R/o 2404, Sector-16, Faridabad-121002

 

……..COMPLAINANT

      

VERSUS

1. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd.,

C-35, Inner Circle, 1^st Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

 

2. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd.,

Thomas Cook building, Dr. D.N Road, Fort,

Mumbai-400001

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

              

The complainant booked 2 tickets for a European Tour, for his son in law and daughter by paying a negotiated price of Rs.3,17,052/- and submitted passport and other necessary documents for obtaining visa for UK. It is alleged that visa was rejected and the complainant could not travel and OP made some deductions towards cancellation charges and returned the balance of Rs.1,79,247/- to complainant vide its letter dated 14.05.13. The same was accepted by complainant without prejudice to his right to clear the full amount of Rs.3,17,052/-. All without any deductions. He has filed this complaint of deficiency alleging that rejection of visa was by mishandling of documents of visa, by OP, which remained in their possession, and they supplied defective passport. The complainant claims return of all money paid, for cancellation of tour, and all the services were changed by OP.

The OP in its reply has denied all allegations and stated that all documents given by complainant in that very condition were given to UK authorized official for visa of UK. They found the passport defective and rejected visa. On the request of daughter of complainant, the tour was cancelled 19 days before departure and amount deducted as per the terms and agreement was made.

We have considered the rival case and find that the daughter of complainant in her evidence affidavit, has stated that MCA issued a notice to her husband Bharat Gupta, to explain tampering of passport, by tearing of two blank pages 31 & 52 for which he was imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- and other charges paid. There is no reason to blame OP for rejection of visa, as it is discretion of UK Embassy, and there is no reason for OP to tear off 2 blank pages of passport, having accepted all charges for the tour.

To us, it is obvious that complainant who is father of the daughter is making up the issue of sake for its only; and the Bharat Gupta, for whom the tour was purchased, has not filed any complaint nor explained how the passport pages went missing and why he paid penalty. The case of complainant inspires no confidence and we do not find any evidence of deficiency on the part of OP.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 27.11.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER