Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/76/2017

MANJU GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARAS HOLIDAYS P. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/76/2017
( Date of Filing : 08 Mar 2017 )
 
1. MANJU GUPTA
A-138, RANJEET NAGAR, BHARAT PUR
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. PARAS HOLIDAYS P. LTD.
321-322, GOLD PLAZA BUILDING, GUEUDWARA ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. REKHA RANI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. MRS. MANJU BALA SHARMA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 21 Mar 2018
Final Order / Judgement

                                                              ORDER                              

Rekha Rani, President

1.       Mrs. Manju Gupta & Sh. Kant Kishore Gupta (in short the complainants) have filed the instant complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act) pleading therein the following facts :

Paras Holidays Pvt Ltd ( in short the OP) offered a package  for the period 23.05.2015 to 06.06.2015 for U.K. & seven European countries for Rs. 3,71,585/- per couple which amount was paid by the complainants to the OP.  The complainants submitted all the documents which were required by the OP for processing VISA formalities.  Complainants appeared before the U.K. Embassy where a representative of the OP obtained signatures of the complainants on certain documents and it was given in writing to U.K. Embassy that Visa and passport of the complainants were to be sent at the address of the OP by registered post.  OP assured that on receipt of U.K. Visa it would arrange European Visa for the complainants. After some time OP informed the complainants telephonically that their U.K. Visa  had been received and they were directed to report at IGI airport at New Delhi where OP would make their Passport and Visa available.  The complainants arrived at IGI airport on 23.05.2015 at 10.00 A.M. However immigration officer raised an objection that on U.K. Visa of complainant Manju Gupta the year of travel was incorrect.   The representative of the OP who was available there was asked about it. He stated that since the VISA of all the group members was found correct he did not check the date of travel on the VISA of complainant no.1.  OP informed complainant no. 1 that after two days she could travel to rest of the seven Europoean countries leaving U.K.  Since complainant no. 2 is husband of complainant no. 1 he could not leave her alone and travel to U.K.  Both the complainants are old.   Therefore they did not want to travel separately.  OP told complainants that both the complainants could go to Amsterdam via Oman and it would get a hotel booked at Amsterdam where they could stay for two days and thereafter they could travel to rest of the 7 European countries along with the other group members who would arrive at Amsterdam after two days.  OP assured the complainant that after completion of the journey it would settle the accounts of the complainants and return the amount due to them.  Having no other option the complainants travelled to Amsterdam via Oman.  They had a very bad experience at Amsterdam.  Although OP had arranged a stay at Amsterdam it did not make any arrangement of food. The hotel officials told the complainants that within 20 Kms of the hotel there was no vegetarian hotel. The complainants stayed hungry for two days and survived only on liquids.  They could not even communicate properly with the people there as they did not understand English. They suffered mental and physical agony while staying at Amsterdam they stayed without food for two days. On 25.05.2015 the group members joined them at Amsterdam where tour manager of the OP came. Complainants requested tour manager to make food available to them as they had been hungry for two days.  Tour manager informed the complainant that food would be available at fixed time.  Food was made available only at 8.00 PM on 25.05.2015 20 Kms away from the Hotel where they stayed. Hence the instant complaint seeking direction to OP to pay a sum of Rs. 3,71,585/- along with interest from the date of payment till realization, Rs. 2 lacs as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation.  

2.       OP was proceeded ex-parte by our predecessor bench vide order dated      03-08-2017.  Complainants have adduced evidence by way of affidavits and we perused the case file.

3.       It is the case of the complainants that OP had assured that it would arrange U.K. and European Visa for them to enable them to travel to U.K. and seven European countries along with other group members on a package of                   Rs. 3,71,585/-.   It is also stated that OP instructed the complainants to come on the date of departure at IGI airport on 03.05.2015 at 10.00 AM where they were handed over their Visa and passport.   It is stated that year of travel to U.K. on the Visa of complainant no. 1 was found to be incorrect by the immigration officials and she was not allowed to travel to U.K.  Learned counsel has argued that complainant no.1 was issued Visa from 04.05.2004 to 04.11.2004 on 05.05.2015 which is  an impossible situation and which also ought to have been checked by OP well before the date of departure and should have got it rectified from U.K. embassy.  It is further stated that complainants had no time to check the VISA as they were required to come to IGI Airport only at time of departure and OP had assured that he would hand over the VISA and passport to them at IGI Airport.

4.       Since the case of the complainants has remained unrebutted we have no reason to disbelieve the same.  Since OP had taken responsibility to arrange U.K. & European Visa for complainant and had also instructed them to apply to U.K. Visa office to send their Visa on the address of OP it was duty of OP to check the Visa particulars in time so that the mistake which occurred could have been got rectified in time.  The complainants could not travel to U.K. because the OP failed to take reasonable care by checking the Visa in time. The complainants had also remained hungry at Amsterdam hotel and OP did honor its commitment that it would provide them accommodation and meals.

5.       Claim of the complainant therefore deserves to be allowed having remained unrebutted.  Complainants have claimed Rs. 371585/- with 18% interest. The entire claim cannot be allowed as they had travelled to seven European countries.  They could not travel to U.K. only.   In the interests of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the case OP is directed to pay Rs. 2 lacs, Rs. 1 lac to each complainant and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.  OP is directed to pay this amount within 30 days of receipt of copy of the said order failing which the said amount will be payable with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this  _____ Day  of  May 2018.

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. REKHA RANI]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MRS. MANJU BALA SHARMA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.