Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Central District,                                   ISBT Building,  5th Floor,  Kashmere Gate, Delhi.

Complaint Case  No. 103/2018

                                                Versus

Naveen Jain, Paras Holidays Private Limited

321-322, 3^rd floor, Gold Plaza Building

Gurudwara Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005         ...Opposite Party

Qoram:

Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

                                                ORDER

Inder Jeet Singh, President

1.  (Introduction) – This complaint is filed on allegations of deficiency in services in arranging correct Visa and consequent thereto, it caused physical trauma, harassment and mental agony because of halt at foreign land, deprive of further journey and early return to India that too arranging returned ticket. The complainant claims a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (comprising cost of Rs. 1,25,000/-re-scheduling the early tickets to India and losses of around Rs. 80,000/-) apart from compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- against OP. Whereas this claim has been opposed by OP that neither there was deficiency of service, requisite visa was arranged on the specific request of the complainant, otherwise OP is in field of tours and travel and  the complaint is without any substance and merit.  The complainant cannot blame the OP for her own omissions and commissions.

2.1 (Complainant’s case)- In nutshell, complainant, Ms. Meetu Jain, an Indian citizen, has been residing at the aforementioned address after her marriage. She along with her husband Shri Nikhil Jain, their two minor children (aged about 3 years and 7 years) her father-in-law (aged about 67 years) and mother-in-law (aged about 64 years)) planned a holiday to Hong Kong and Malaysia. She contacted OP- Paras Holidays Pvt. Ltd. on 07.02.2008 (Whatsapp dated 07.02.2018 is Annex.-I to the complaint) to avail services of Visa for Malaysia, however, the bookings and other arrangements were made by the complainant. There was Whatsapp correspondence (i.e. Annex.- I) with Mr. Rajendra, an employee of the OP,  he asked all the documents for grant of Visa and accordingly the complainant provided him documents available inclusive of air tickets, hotel accommodation, copy of passport and photograph (Annex.-II and Annex.-III). The air tickets were clearly mentioning that itinerary showing plans of reaching Malaysia via Hong Kong (Annex.-IV to the complaint). The Visa was made available by email on 21.02.2018 (Annex.-V and Annex.- VI to the complaint).

2.2 It was 05.04.2018 (wrongly mentioned as 05.03.2018 in complaint, affidavit of evidence and in written argument but 05.04.2018 in ticket being part of Annex. - III), when at the time of boarding flight from Hong Kong to Malaysia, the complainant and other family members were denied permission to board the plane on account of the Visa was incorrect, immediately she contacted the said Mr. Rajendra from Hong Kong but he did not show any willingness to help them. Consequently, the complainant along with her two minor children and two senior citizens were struck on a foreign land. It was discovered on inquiry that Visa given to the complainant was valid only if her flight would have been direct to Malaysia Fro and To India. Any arrival into Malaysia from any other country would require a different Visa. The complainant was provided ENTRI Visa, which was wrong, as e-Visa was required. Since the complainant was to enter Malaysia from Hong Kong, the OP ought to have been arranged and given e-Visa for travelling of the complainant and her family members. Thence after arrival in India, complainant’s husband wrote to Malaysian embassy by e-mail seeking clarification, which also stated requirement of e-Visa (reply is Annex.-VII to the complaint).

2.3. The complainant had tickets to stay in Malaysia for three days but she did not have a valid Visa to go there, she had to re-schedule her tickets from Hong Kong to India and the best available flight for back to India was via  Malaysia with 20 hours halt at Malaysia Airport (Boarding Pass is Annex.-VIII to the complaint), whereas their clothes and medicine had routed to India directly from Hong Kong, thus complainant’s mother-in-law’s medicine requirement for blood pressure caused a lot of mental and physical trauma on a foreign land. Complainant’s two minor children had also exhausted for no fault of complainant (Credit Card statement and Hotel Voucher of transit Airport are Annex.-IX and Annex.- X to the complaint). It is fault and mistake of travel agency, which caused immense financial and mental stress. When Shri Naveen Jain, of OP,  was tried to be contacted, he did not meet the complainant, let alone acknowledge his mistake. When Police intervened, he just denied the mistake. When clarification was sought from them by email letter and speed post, no response was given by them. The travel agency, whose nature of business involves knowledge of all technicalities, committed such a fault but a layman like the complainant does not want any problem on a foreign land by taking their services, thinking of their expertise. The fraudulent agencies just think of their selfish ends, without business ethics or commitments. That is why, complaint was filed.

3.1 (Case of OP)- OP filed reply under the pen of Shri Naveen Jain, he denies the allegations as well as claim of complainant by way of preliminary submissions that complaint does not disclose any deficiency to be covered within the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was filed with ill motive to harass and to cause mental agony to the OP as well as financial losses and to extract the same illegally from the OP by abusing the process of law. The complaint is mala-fide by twisting and pleading cleverly by withholding relevant information and documents not referring in the complaint or filed with the complaint, it amounts to fraud on the Commission as well as on the OP. It is case of act of omission and commission of complainant, for which OP cannot be blamed for by way of the complaint. The OP rushed to authorities for arranging Visa on the specific request of complainant and it was granted by Malaysian embassy, it was legal & valid visa and she also travelled by that Visa, there is no deficiency in the services provided by the OP. The complaint deserves dismissal.

3.2 In fact, it was 06.02.2018 when complainant contacted Mr. Rajendra Prasad (now OP/W2) on Whatsapp number- 9717816620 and enquired charges for Malaysia Visa only for four adults and two kids (Whatsapp dated 06.02.2018 is now Exh. OP1/2) and  whatsapp of 07.02.2018 was not exclusive message being projected in the complaint. The reply reproduces the message as “ Hi Rajendra Ji... hello mam  - Malaysia ka Visa lagwana hai.. 4 adults and 2 kids (age 3 and 7) Kya charges hai? - Ho jaynga mam -  kitne dino ka lagwana hai. E Visa Karwadu - Let me call. OK.-  I will call you later on.” On 07.02.2018, the complainant contacted again Shri Rajendra on Whatsapp, she did not ask for e-Visa but only asked for seeking Malaysia Visa apart from fees for the same, which Mr. Rajendra informed about the charges as well as the period of Malaysia Visa to the complainant;  she was also informed about the required documents (namely colour photo-copy of passport - front and back, two white back ground photographs, return air tickets and proof of accommodation). Initially, complainant had provided copies of air ticket and hotel reservation but later provided colour copy of passport,  bio and address pages only. On request of complainant, the charges of Malaysia Visa  of children was discounted and arranged for Rs. 1,800/- each person. It is clear that complainant of her own planned and arranged her tour, her tour was not planned through OP.   The OP was just requested by complainant to arrange visa only from India to Malaysia. The complainant had not sought Visa for Malaysia via a Hong Kong or for multiple entry Visa or e-Visa, which is clear from Whatsapp message as well as in paragraph 3 of her complaint. Although, Rajendra Prasad had specifically asked from complainant in Whatsapp communication for getting arranged E-Visa but there was no response.

3.3 The OP denies all other allegations of deficiency of services. The complainant was withheld at the airport, not because of OP. The complainant never sought any E-Visa or of multiple entry Visa and the complainant is attributing  false allegations. The Visa was issued by the embassy of Malaysia, Visa was provided on 21.02.2018, she never complaint till the date of her making air journey. After her arrival, by travelling on that Visa, it was between the complainant and the concerned country, the OP stands nowhere in between them. There was no fault on the part of OP, she had not requested for Visa other than requisitioned in the Whatsapp message. The OP also refers and mentions the disclaimer clause of Visa and it is supplemented that OP has no control as it is in the prerogative of the concerned authority of the State (irrespective of correctness or incorrectness of the Visa) to allow or deny entry into any country, which is known to the complainant being earlier foreign traveler and there is always risk of getting struck on foreign land. The OP is not liable for omission or commission on the part of complainant.  It was complainant's own re-schedule from Hong Kong to India via Malaysia or their halt for 20 hours at Malaysian Airport, it cannot be blamed to OP The OP also denies other allegations of complaint with juxtaposition version that the OP cannot be imputed for any costs, financial or mental stress, if any, The OP is not in business of arranging of Visa but in the field of tour and travel business of arranging tickets, hotel booking, food, sight scenes etc. and grant of Visa is beyond their control. The OP also denies other allegations that Mr. Naveen Jain had not clarified the queries of complainant and Mr. Rajendra Prasad had also guided the complainant when contacted by the complainant, however, the comments like selfish ends or no business ethics are scandalous and highly defamatory. In fact, complainant herself is responsible for her own omission, commission and losses, if any, caused to her and OP is not liable for any claims either of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation or of Rs. 20,000/- or of any amount to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- as alleged in the complaint.

4. (Replication of complainant)- The complainant filed replication to the complaint and it reiterates the complaint as correct and also denies the allegations of reply of OP. It is supplemented that complainant is a laymen, she does not know regarding E-Visa and complainant had requested the OP for providing Visa for Malaysia tour but it was OP, who was knowing what Visa is necessary for tour to Malaysia, the OP intentionally harassed the complainant and not provided/correct Visa for tour to Malaysia, there is deficiency in services as well as negligence on the part of OP. Further, the complainant, being layman, had no reasons to believe the Visa granted to her was not correct/valid and also there were reasons to contact embassy of Malaysia for clarification. The complaint is re-affirmed correct.

5. (Evidence of the parties)- Complainant filed her affidavit for evidence, supplementing with the documentary record, referred in complaint. Whereas, OP had led evidence through affidavits of its witnesses namely  Shri Rajendra Prasad, employee of M/s Paras Holidays Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Naveen Jain, Director of M/s Paras Holidays Pvt. Ltd./OP, they have also referred the documents filed in support of reply. The affidavits of evidence are replica of pleadings.

6. (Submissions/arguments of the Parties)-  Both the parties have filed their respective written submissions and complainant had also made oral submissions. It was 09.12.2022 when the complainant came from Banglore to make submissions herself, she was heard. However, the matter was reserved for orders by giving time to OP to argue Later, it was 19.12.2022 when Counsel Shri S.S Jain Advocate came but he was not keeping well, thus on 26.12.2022, the arguments were heard, the complainant was informed well in advance by the staff that arguments would be heard at 2:30pm on 26.12.2022, which may be attended by her. However,  the complainant requested that she had already made the submission,  she may come if any clarification is to be required. Thus, submissions on behalf of OP were heard on 26.12.2022. The contentions of the parties will be referred during discussion appropriately, instead of reproducing them here.

7.1 (Findings)- The contentions of both the sides are considered and analyzed keeping in view their versions coupled with documentary record. There are some undisputed relevant facts, the same are being culled out. There is no dispute of whatsapp conversations of 06.02.2018 and 07.02.2018 are between the complainant on one side and Shri Rajendra Prasad of OP on other side. The complainant herself is planner of her foreign trip. The OP is not planner of trip of complainant and her family members. The OP had arranged ENTRI Visa to the complainant, which was valid Visa and that it was availed by the complainant and her family members within the currency period of  Visa. It is also undisputed that Visa arranged was not e-Visa or multi-entry Visa. The OP had took charges for ENTRi Visa and not for e-Visa or multi-entry Visa.

         However, other features are in dispute by the parties. The complainant contends that the OP was requested for Visa and relevant documents were also furnished, despite that Visa was not arranged as requested but wrong Visa was arranged, which had caused not only physical harassment and mental agony but also financial loses to the complainant. Had there been proper Visa arranged, the complainant and her family had not suffered any harassment, stress, inconvenience at foreign land apart from financial losses.

     On the other side, the plea of OP is that Visa requested was arranged, the Visa was provided about 40 days in advance from the date of boarding the plane and there was never any complaint by the complainant. The complainant is a previous foreign traveler, she has knowledge about the formalities for availing the visa. In addition, she was knowing Sh. Rajendra Prasad and that is why on 06.02.2018, a whatsapp chat with Greetings (Hi Rajendraji) to Mr. Rajendra was exchanged but she intentionally withheld whatsapp of 06.02.2018 from the record of this file. This whatsapp message clearly shows that it was Mr. Rajendra Prasad, who  actually asked about e-Visa to be arranged but there was no response or confirmation for e-Visa by the complainant. The complainant has not suffered at the hands of OP and as a matter of fact the OP had extended courtesy as well as services for arranging Visa despite the OP is not in the business of arranging Visa but in the business of tours and travels.

7.2: While analyzing the record, it is a fact that complainant has referred and introduced her case with Whatsapp dated 07.02.2018 being the first initiation  towards seeking visa. But it is the OP, who has brought on record the Whatsapp of 06.02.2018 exchanged between the complainant and Rajendra Prasad, when first initiation was by the complainant. It is appropriate to reproduce both the messages in order to cull out the intentions of the parties as well as other terms and conditions, if any, agreed upon between them.

Text of whatsapp message dated 06.02.2018 [filed by OP, being Exh. OP-1/2] which reads as -

“Hi Rajendra Ji...

 hello mam

 Malaysia ka Visa lagwana hai.. 4 adults and 2 kids (age 3 and 7)

 Kya charges hai?

 Ho jaynga mam

 kitne dino ka lagwana hai.

 E Visa Karwadu.

 Let me call.

 OK.

 I will call you later on.”

Text of whatsapp message dated 07.02.2018 [filed by complainant, it is Annex.-I, which is also not disputed by the parties], reads as -

"07.02.2018 "Good morning Rajendra Ji. please tell me the fee of the malaysian via (per head)..

It will be 2000 per person.

The visa will grant for 15 day's....

The require documents are..

1. Colour copy of passport front and back..

2.Photo graphs 2 with size of 35*45 white background..

3. Air ticket

4.Proof of accommodation..

The visa will grant within a day after receiving the amount and docs...

Thanks and regards

Rajendra"

7.3:   The text messages of 06.02.2018 and 07.02.2018 are in continuity of the dialogue between the complainant and Mr. Rajendra Prasad. On plain reading of text message of 06.02.2018 it was Rajendra Prasad, who had asked the complainant whether to get arranged the e-Visa but the complainant replied that she will call later on. Then on next day 07.02.2018, there was no request in the text message by the complainant seeking e-Visa. Moreover, there is also no query by the complainant, as to what is e-Visa, if she was not knowing about e-Visa.  Moreover, when Mr Rajendra asked about to get e-visa done, she make two responses, 'let me call' and then ' I will call you later on'.  Then on next day, the complainant had another text message communication which took place between the complainant and Mr. Rajendra Prasad.  In such conversation between the complainant and the official of OP, there was no specific request by the complainant for e-Visa, it was for complainant to tell as told in the text of 06,02,2018, The ENTRi Visa was arranged by OP and it was a valid Visa, subject to disclaimer/terms and conditions mentioned. The complainant had also travelled on that Visa. In the communication "Good morning Rajendra Ji. please tell me the fee of the Malaysian via (per head)". third last word 'via' is mentioned, whether word is actually 'via' or something like 'visa', by reading this third last word, with the previous text and subsequent text, the sense makes out is 'visa per head', thus expression 'via' is to actually 'visa', the clear expression cull out as  'the fee of Malaysian visa per head.

7.4:    There was another grievances by the complainant that she ought to have been given expert opinion by the OP, since the OP was to arrange the Visa, whereas it is undisputed fact that OP is in the field of tours and travels as well as OP conceded to request of complainant to provide services for arranging the requested Visa. Moreover, in the text of 06.02.2018, the complainant was specifically asked to get arrange e-Visa, but complainant had not asked so in her  further communication continuing in the text message on Whatsapp of 07.02.2018. There is also no record that she had sought any opinion from the OP, otherwise the OP's Rajendra Prasad had asked to get arranged e-Visa, then why complainant kept silent despite saying that she will call lateron. Consequently, it establishes the case of OP that it was never requested for e-Visa or for multi-purpose Visa by the complainant and OP was constrained to get arranged the Visa requested by the complainant, apart from the fees was taken for Visa arranged for and not for e-Visa. When complainant's husband sought information from the embassy of Malaysia through e-mail dated 20.04.2018 (Annex. VII to the complaint), it was confirmed what was stated by the OP to the complainant, that an ENTRi registration is applicable only for Indian nationals tourist, residing inside India, must have a direct flight from India to Malaysia, or via Singapore/Thailand/Brunei and must have a direct return flight ticket from Malaysia to India or via Singapore/Thailand/Brunei.

7.5:  One more allied dispute emerging in the rival plea is that complainant had provided to OP the requisite documents including air ticket for itinerary of complainant, however, this will not exonerate the complainant from her own specific instruction to get Visa arranged as put  in whatsapp text of 07.02.2018.  It was complaint's own decision to obtain Visa as requested in text of 07.02.2018 but when on 05.04.2018 she was at Hong-Kong, she felt constraints of terms and conditions of ENTRi Visa and then complains that she ought to have been opined by OP, whereas OP had asked her whether to get arranged e-Visa vis a vis the complainant had never asked other opinions of OP.  Thus. it would not bring the case of deficiency of services by the OP or  negligence on the part of OP. Consequently, for want of proof of complaint, the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for.

7.6: The complaint is dismissed. Both parties will bear their own costs.

8. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

Announced on this  06th^th day of  January 2023.