IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTADated this the 23rd day of June, 2010.Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 58/2007 (Filed on 30.04.2007) Between: Dr. Mathew Koshy Punnakadu, S/o. Rev. P.M. Koshy, Malayil- Punnoorethu Grace Bhavan, Punnakkadu P.O., Kozhencherry. (By Adv. Sabu Thomas) .... Complainant. And: 1. M/s. Travel Professionals, Naduvilemuriyil Buildings, Kozhencherry, represented by Mr. Johny. P.Mathew, Poyyanil Naduvilemuriyil, Kozhencherry P.O. 2. Mr. Johy.P. Mathew, Proprietor, M/s. Travel Professional, Poyyanil Naduvilemuriyil, Kozhencherry P.O. (By Adv. K.M. Alexander) .... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant who is the Reader in Chemistry in Bishop Moore College, Mavelikkara and is one of the leading Environmentalist in Kerala and the Secretary of Board of Ecological concerns of Church of South India, Madhya Kerala Diocese and he was invited by UNESCO as a key speaker in the First International Experts Workshop of Faith based organisations and Education for sustainable Development which is scheduled to took place in Barcelona on 22nd to 24th March 2007. He was also invited to attend a consultation at the Ecumenical Centre in Geneva, Switzerland, Head Quarters of World Council of Churches from March 21st and 22nd of 2007 at their expenses. The first opposite party is a travel agency dealing in flight tickets, emigration visa and allied activities of foreign travel and the first opposite party is represented by the second opposite party who is the proprietor of the first opposite party. Complainant approached the opposite party for his flight tickets and visa stamping and made an advance amount of Rs.30,000/- on 21.02.2006. The opposite parties assured that they will collect visa and flight tickets including the return on or before 10th March, 2007. The complainant was regularly contacting the opposite party for ascertaining the progress regarding the flight tickets and visa stamping. On 10th March 2007, the opposite parties told the complainant that the application for visa has been accepted by the Consulates and also assured that the visa would be given to the complainant before the travel. 3. While so on 17.03.2007, the complainant was told that their representative collected visa from Delhi and it would be handed over to the complainant on 19.03.2007. Meanwhile the complainant had spent more than Rs.25,000/- for his travel arrangements. But on 19.03.2007, Mr. Joy, the Manager of the opposite parties informed the complainant that the visa has been rejected by both Consulates. Then the complainant contacted the opposite parties who also informed the rejection of the visa. On enquiry at Delhi Embassy, the complainant found that the opposite parties never submitted the papers at the Embassy for visa. The Spanish and Swiss Consulates also informed the complainant that his name was not in their computer and they told that the application for visa was not there. The Consulates further informed the complainant that they would not deny visa of UNESCO Programme. Therefore, the complainant arranged his visa and tickets for the programme by his own means by spending more money and efforts. Due to the above said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant had sustained mental agony and financial loss of Rs.1 lakh. This is a clear deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties and they are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence, this complaint for the realisation of Rs.1,80,000/- under various heads along with 18% interest from the opposite parties. 4. The main contentions of the opposite parties as per their version is as follows: The opposite parties admitted that they have collected Rs.30,000/- from the complainant and it was returned to the complainant in March 2007. The opposite parties denied that they have assured to process and delivery the visa, tickets etc. on or before 10.03.2007. The complainant never contacted the opposite parties to know the progress of the visa application and ticket etc. The complainant was informed that only on full payment, the ticket can be issued and only thereafter the visa application can be made. After conveying this information, the complainant never cared to make full payment and hence the tickets could not be issued nor visa application could be made. The opposite parties denied that they have never told that the complainant’s visa application had been accepted by the Consulates. The opposite parties never assured that the visa would be given to the complainant before the travel by paying the advance only. 5. On 17.03.2007, the complainant contacted the opposite parties and he was reminded that only on full payment, the tickets could be issued and then only the visa application could be made. The opposite parties never told the complainant that his representative collected visa from Delhi and it would be handed over to the complainant on 19.03.2007. The opposite parties never informed that the visa application has been rejected by both Consulates. The non-submission of the application for visa is not due to any fault of the opposite parties but due to the non-payment of the tick charges in full. The complainant never submitted the necessary photographs or put his signature in the visa application. The spending of additional amount of Rs.1 lakh and the non-attending of the meeting of WCC is not known to the opposite parties. There was economy class ticket available on that day. But the complainant used business class since he is eligible to get travel expenses from the persons who invited him. All this happened due to the complainant’s self deeds and not due to the opposite parties. With the above contentions, they pray for the dismissal of the complaint, as they have not committed any deficiency of service to the complainant. 6. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, the only point to be decided is whether this complaint is allowable or not? 7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DW1 based on their proof affidavits and Exts.A1 to A15. After closure of evidence both sides were heard. 8. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that he was invited by UNESCO and World Council of Churches for attending the conferences of UNESCO and WCC scheduled on 21.03.2007 to 24.03.2007 at Barcelona and Geneva. In connection with his travel, he approached the opposite parties for his air ticket and visa. An amount of Rs.30,000/-, as advance, was given to the opposite parties on 21.02.2007 for the same. But the opposite parties have not arranged the ticket and the visa as promised by them. Thereafter the complainant himself had arranged his ticket and visa for his journey at the last moment. The opposite parties have not even submitted the visa application before the Consulates. Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant was compelled to spend an additional amount of Rs.1 lakh for getting the ticket and visa in time for attending the conference. By using the said ticket and visa, he had attended the conference. Thus the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service by not arranging the ticket and visa of the complainant. This caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the said deficiency. 9. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit narrating his case in lieu of chief examination. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts.A1 to A7. Thereafter, again the complainant produced certain documents, which are marked as Exts.A8 to A15 on the basis of further chief examination. Ext.A1 is the visiting card of the second opposite party. Ext.A2 is the travel itinerary dated 20.02.2007 issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A3 is the letter of invitation dated 02.03.2007 issued by the Asia Secretary, World Council of Churches, Geneva showing the invitation of the complainant to the conference of WCC scheduled from 21.03.2007 at Switzerland. Ext.A4 is the invitation letter dated 17.01.2007 issued by UNESCO to the complainant for attending the conference from 22.03.2007 to 24.03.2007 at Barcelona. Ext.A5 is the photocopy of the No Objection Certificate issued by the Manager, Bishop Moore College, Mavelikara showing that the college management has no objection to the complainant in attending the conference. Ext.A6 the E-mails and other correspondences received by the complainant from UNESCO Headquarters. Ext.A7 is the receipt dated 21.02.2007 issued by the opposite parties for the receipt of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant. Ext.A8 is the certificate dated 29.12.2008 issued by the Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kozhencherry Branch showing that an amount of Rs.1,51,508/- is transferred from the said bank to the account of Govan Travels. Ext.A9 is the photocopy of the travel itinerary issued by Govan Travels dated 22.03.2008 to the complainant showing the fly details of the complainant to and fro journey by air. Ext.A10 is the photocopy of an application for visa-dated 21.03.2007 submitted before the Spanish Consulate, New Delhi by the complainant for issuing visa to the complainant for attending the conference. Ext.A11 is the photocopy of the bill for air tickets dated 21.03.2007 issued to the complainant by Govan Travels. Ext.A12 is the copy of invitation letter dated 13.02.2007 issued by UNESCO inviting the complainant to attend the conference at Barcelona. Ext.A13 is the cash receipt for Rs.1,51,508/- issued by Govan Travels. Ext.A14 is the Boarding Pass showing the journey of the complainant on 21.03.2007 from Delhi to Barcelona. Ext.A15 is the copy of the relevant pages of the complainant’s passport. The complainant was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. 10. Opposite parties’ main contention is that the complainant had paid Rs.30,000/- as advance and they have booked the tickets. But he had not paid the balance amount irrespective of the opposite parties’ intimation that the tickets will not be issued without paying the full amount of the tickets and the visa could not be stamped without submitting the tickets before the Consulate. Because of the non-payment of the full amount of the ticket charges, the tickets they have booked for the complainant was cancelled. In the circumstance, they are not liable to the complainant and they have not committed any deficiency of service. 11. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the second opposite party filed proof affidavit and on the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1. No documentary evidence were adduced from the side of the opposite parties. 12. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, we have perused the materials on record and found that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- as advance for getting his air tickets and visa for his foreign travel. There is no evidence to show that the opposite parties had arranged the tickets and visa to the complainant. At the same time, Exts.A6, A9, A10, A11 and A13 shows that the complainant had arranged his tickets and visa directly without the help of the opposite parties at the last moment of his journey. Opposite parties also admitted the above facts in cross-examination, which is as follows: “hmZn¡mhiyamb Sn¡/hnk Rm³ FSp¯p sImSp¯n«nÔ. But the opposite parties’ argument is that the complainant had not paid the entire amount of the ticket charges and he had not given the necessary documents to them for processing visa irrespective of the intimation to the complainant. They have not produced any evidence to show that they have communicated the matter to the complainant. This fact was also admitted by the opposite party in his cross-examination which is as follows:- “Bhiyamb tcJIthWsa¶v tcJmaqew Bhiys¸«ncp¶nÃ. s^{_phcn 13v Xs¶ hnhcw hmZntbmSv ]dªncp¶p”. But in re-examination, DW1 submitted as follows:- “Ext.A2e point number –2 head/span> ]dªncn¡p¶ kwKXn 16.02.2007/span> Xs¶ full amount \ÂIn Sn¡ confirm sNbvXnsæn Luftanza flight/span> _p¡p sN¿p¶ Sn¡ Iym³k BIpw F¶mWv. Ext.A2 hmZn¡v \ÂInbn«pÅXmWv. 20.02.2007, 5.33 P.M/span>\v BWv \ÂInbXv”. 13. According to the opposite parties, as per Ext.A2, they have intimated the complainant to remit the full amount on or before 16.02.2007. But as per the deposition of DW1, they have given Ext.A2 to the complainant on 20.02,2007 at 5-33 p.m. which means that the demand of the opposite parties for the full payment of the ticket charges was intimated to the complainant only after the cancellation of the tickets. So the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant had not remitted the full amount of the ticket charges irrespective of the intimation for the same is not sustainable. Therefore, the opposite parties had committed clear deficiency in service by not providing air tickets to the complainant after receiving an amount of Rs.30,000/- as advance for purchasing the tickets and other purposes. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the above said deficiency in service. However, the complainant failed to adduce cogent evidence to substantiate his claim that he was compelled to spend more money for getting the tickets and his visa than what is actually required for the same. He had failed to adduce any evidence to show the difference of the ticket fares of economy class and business class. He also failed to adduce evidence to show that he had spent additional expense and unnecessary expense due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties. So we are not inclined to allow the complainant’s prayers in the complaint as such. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the mental agony sustained by the complainant due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties is not arranging ticket and visa. Hence this complaint can be allowed in part with a reasonable compensation and cost to the complainant. 14. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant along with cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the whole amount ordered herein above with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from today till the whole realisation. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of June 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Dr. Mathew Koshy. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Visiting card of the second opposite party. A2 : Travel itinerary dated 20.02.2007 issued by the opposite parties. A3 : Letter dated 02.03.2007 issued by the Asia Secretary, World Council of Churches, Geneva to the complainant. A4 : Invitation letter dated 17.01.2007 issued by UNESCO to the complainant. A5 : Photocopy of the No Objection Certificate issued by the Manager, Bishop Moore College, Mavelikara to the complainant. A6 : E-mails and other correspondences received by the complainant from UNESCO Headquarters. A7 : Receipt dated 21.02.2007 issued by the opposite parties for the receipt of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant. A8 : Certificate dated 29.12.2008 issued by the Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kozhencherry Branch to the complainant. A9 : Photocopy of the travel itinerary issued by Govan Travels dated 22.03.2008 to the complainant. A10 : Photocopy of the application for visa-dated 21.03.2007 submitted before the Spanish Consulate, New Delhi by the complainant. A11 : Photocopy of the bill for air tickets dated 21.03.2007 issued to the complainant by Govan Travels. A12 : Copy of letter dated 13.02.2007 issued by UNESCO to the complainant. A13 : Cash receipt for Rs.1,51,508/- issued by Govan Travels. A14 : Boarding Pass showing the journey of the complainant on 21.03.2007 from Delhi to Barcelona. A15 : Copy of relevant pages of the complainant’s passport. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Johny.P.Mathew. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Dr. Mathew Koshy Punnakadu, Malayil Punnoorethu Grace Bhavan, Punnakkadu P.O., Kozhencherry. (2) Mr. Johny. P.Mathew, Poyyanil Naduvilemuriyil, Kozhencherry P.O. (3) Mr. Johy.P. Mathew, Proprietor, M/s. Travel Professional, Poyyanil Naduvilemuriyil, Kozhencherry P.O. (4) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
