Delhi

East Delhi

CC/389/2018

KAMINI CHAUHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORCHID TRAVELS - Opp.Party(s)

06 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 389/2018

1     2     3	Ms. Kamini Chauchan D/o Shri Jai Kishan N-45, Upper Ground, Flat No. 2, Opp. N-15 Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092   Kaushalya Devi W/o Shri Ravinder Kumar B-4/S Vijeta Vihar, Delhi Police Society Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi 110085   Ms. Swatantra Dua D/o Late Shri Khilanda Ram Dua 24-E, Bunglow Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi 110007	….Complainant
Versus
	Orchid Travel & Tours Orchid Langford Town Branch# 4 1st Floor, O Shaughnessy Road, Museum Road, Bangalore-560025   Also at : Orchid Malleshwaram Branch# 198 1st Floor, 11th Cross, Yathri Rajmath Building, Malleshwaram Bengaluru 560003, Karnataka	……OP

Date of Institution: 04.12.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 26.04.2022

Judgment Passed on: 06.05.2022

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member) – on leave.

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra, President

JUDGEMENT

1. Before coming to facts, it is necessary to mention that complainants had filed their complaints by joining common cause of action i.e. complainants-1 to complainant-3 against the OPs but simultaneous they filed an application seeking permission for class action suit/proceedings u/s 12(1)(c) of CPA 1986 interalia praying that Ms. Kamini Chauhan be allowed to peruse the proceedings for other complainants which application was allowed vide order dated 18.2.2018 by Ld. Pre-predecessor and Smt. Kamini Chauhan was allowed to represent all three complainants.
2. By this order I shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the complainant against OP, inter-alia praying for return on the balance amount of booking amounting to Rs. 3,30,344/- in totality of all the three complaints alongwith interest @18% per annum on account of non-providing the services with respect to procuring the tickets and Visa for their visiting Malaga, Spain for participating in World Master Athletic Championship which was to be held from 4 to 16 September 2018 there.
3. Now, coming to the facts to the present complaint, it is sated that the complainants are retired government servants and are internationally acclaimed athletes. In September 2018 the World Master Athletic Championship was to be organized in Malaga, Sapin and complainant showed their willingness for participating in the same and forwarded their entries to World Master Athletic Championship of India (MAFI).
4. After scrutiny of the entries and being shortlisted on merit, the OP approached the complainants in Delhi claiming itself the authorized service provider and the travel agent for the aforementioned championship and it was assured that they would render their services for Visa procurement and travel booking, hotel booking and other complexities for athletes and on it’s request the complaint-1 and complainant-2 transferred Rs. One lac each in the a/c of OP on 12.6.2018 and OP3 transferred said amount of Rs. one lac on 14.6.2018. The OP has sent their duly filled Visa procurement forms by writing the category of Visa as ‘business’ instead of ‘tourist/sports’ and when questioned the OP informed the complainant they had been procuring the Visa like this only and there will be no issue in grant of visa because of such mentioning. The OP then sent flight ticket on 14.7.2018 of Turkish Airlines, both side i.e. departure on 3.9.2018 from Delhi to Malaga, Spain via Istanbul and arrival on 17.9.2018 from Malaga, Spain to Delhi via Istanbul. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure C-5. The complainant after going through the tickets got astonished as they had to perform their event on 4.9.2018 and booking of their ticket was for 3.9.2018 and it would not make them ready to perform same day and therefore, they asked for rescheduling of their tickets upon which OP conveyed that initial Airlines tickets are just for procurement of Visa and fresh tickets for travel will be provided once the Visa would be finalized. OP then made lodging provision for the complainants at Hotel Natali Torremolions at Hoyo 28, Torremolions Malaga, Spain 29620 on 3.9.2018 to 17.9.2018 for complainant-1 & complainant-2 and for complainant-3 from 5.9.2018 to 17.9.2018 @130 Euros per day on twin sharing basis. It is specifically mentioned that when these rates were checked on website then it was found that per day charges mentioned by the above mentioned website are much lower than the per day charges taken by OP from the complainants and when he was questioned no justifiable answer was given by OP. The copy of hotel booking dated 27.7.2018 are annexed as Annexure C-6. The OP asked the complainants to deposit Rs.65,000/- from complainant-1 & complainant-2 each and Rs.45,000/- to complainant-3 which was also deposited and they were continuously asking the OP for rescheduling the flight tickets but the OP was not taking any positive action. The complainant then suggested some alternate routes to the OP and then OP on 30.8.2018 sent the revised flight ticket of complainant-3 for departure on 5.9.2018 and for complainant-1 & complainant-1 on 2.9.2018 via Qatar Airways both sides and return of the ticket was through Hyderabad instead of Delhi and this was again questioned but no justifiable reason was provided by OP. However, some delays was being caused in grant of Visa and when complainant informed the OP about this, the OP informed that they themselves can approach and made presentation in person in the Embassy of Spain to grant Visa which the complainant initiated but somehow the visa of the complainants were rejected by mentioning the reason, ‘the information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and condition of the intended stay not reliable’. The same was communicated to OP and he was directed to return the amount as Visa has been denied only due to the negligence of OP who made material error in filling visa forms of the complainant by mentioning the same negligently ‘business’ instead of ‘sport/tourist’. Copy of Visa rejection order form is annexed as Annexure C-11. The complainant, thereafter, raised various issues with the OP and requested the OP to refund their amount and even Mr. David Premanth the Secy General of MAFI intervened and sent email to OP thereby directing him to refund the amount of complainant but of no consequences and after great persuasion, an amount of Rs.50,011/- each for complainant1 & complainant2 and Rs.44,634/- for complainant3 was returned and complete amount was not returned thereafter. And intotally amount Rs.3,30,344/- was not returned by OP to complainant i.e. Rs.1,14,989/- each for complainant1 & complainant2 and Rs.1,00,366/- for complainant3 and through this complaint complainant prayed for return of this amount with interest 18% p.a. and compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for each of the complainant.
5. While going through the application for issue notice to OP the Commission did not find it proper to issue notice to OP2 & OP3 and they were deleted from the array of parties simultaneously and notice was issued to OP1 to appear and one Mr. Krishan Kumar AR for OP1 appeared on 23.5.2019 and received the copy of the complaint. Time was given to him to file reply but no reply was filed either on 16.4.2019, 4.9.2019 and 7.11.2019 and ultimately, the OP was proceeded ex parte on 7.11.2019. Complainant was directed to file his ex parte evidence. However, thereafter, on account of nationwide lock-down proceedings could not be done and complainant filed their ex-parte evidence thereafter. The Commission heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. The complaint of the complainant(s) in nutshell is two folds i.e. one, for not properly applying the Visa by not writing the class/category for the Visa being sought and secondly, for rejection of the Visa on such misrepresentation in the application form filled by OP for procuring the Visa for specific category and for refund of the amount given by complainant to OP. Prior to file the present complaint a legal notice was issued to OP which has been duly replied by OP. The fact that complaint-1 & complaint-2 had paid Rs.1,65,000/- each and complainant3 had paid Rs.145000/- i.e. in totality Rs.4,75,000/.- to the OP is not disputed. The OP in its reply to some extent has tried to make out the case that the rejections of Visa was not on account of his fault as the form was duly filled by the complainant and secondly, the hotel concerned where the complainant had to stay during the said Athlete Meet was cancelled at the last minute and therefore, they had not returned the amount and as far as OP himself is concerned he has retruned Rs.50,011/- each for complainant1 & complainant2 and Rs.44,634/- for complainant3 and there is no other dues pending against him.
7. This contention would have been adjudicated upon by this Commission provided OP would have firstly filed its written statement and then would have filed its evidence and would have deposed on these terms on oath, thereby placing on record the exact reason for not returning the amount by the Hotel Natali Torremolions at Hoyo 28, Torremolions Malaga, Spain 29620 but despite giving opportunity to OP to file written statement and despite having received copy of the complaint from the Commission, the OP did not come forward to file its reply and to prove its contention. The contention of the OP however strong it may be cannot take the place of proof.  The complainant on the other hand have been able to prove on records that that OP was duly authorized agent from IMFI for arranging the Visa procurement  facilities and other complexities with relation to the procurement of Visa, tickets and their stay and safe return of the Athletes, the reason for wrongly mentioning the purpose of the visit of the complainants, the very same reason for rejecting the Visa by the Embassy of Spain, and then by not returning the entire amounts of complainants. Therefore, this Commission is of the opinion that in absence of any defence of the OP, the complainant have been able to prove that there was deficiency in providing the services by OP in not arranging Visa, not assisting complainants for procuring the Visa, not procuring the tickets at the Meet for the right date in consonance with their performance of the particular event, and for that OP is liable to refund the amount and also pay the compensation. Accordingly  this Commission directs OP : 

1. To refund the amount of Rs.1,14,989/- to the complainant-1 & complainant-2 each and Rs.1,00,366/- to complainant-3 with interest @9% per annum from date of deposit till date of payment realization.
2. To pay the complainants a consolidated amount of Rs.25000/- each as compensation on account of pain and mental agony suffered by them and legal expenses.

 

8. This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
9. Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.
10. File be consigned to Record Room.
11. Announced on 6.5.2022

DELHI

 

 

on leave (Ritu Garodia) Member

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President