CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 16^th  day of February, 2017

PRESENT  : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT                           Date of filing: 18/01/2016

                  : SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER

                  : SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER

CC/04/2016

  1.Shaji Jacob, S/o. Jacob,

     Erimattathil Veedu,

     Robinson Road, Palakkad.

  2. Jasmin, W/o.Shaji Jacob,

      Erimattathil Veedu,

     (By Adv.M.C.Kuriachan)                                       :   Complainant

                                                        Vs

  1.Peace Holiland Mission,

     Vettukallel Arcade, Alphonsa Nagar,

     Bharananganam, Pala, Kottayam,

     Rep. by Tour Organiser,

     Babu Thomas, Puthiyaparambil,

     Bharananganam, Pala,

     Kottayam.                                                           : Opposite parties

  2. Father Mathew Vadakkambadam,

      Kalool St. Johns, Catholic Palli,

      Edavaka Vikari, Kaloor P.O., Thodupuzha

      (By Adv. Mini Francis)

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma K.P.Member

The above complaint is filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and claiming compensation from them for the reason that they failed to provide travelling facility for want of visa which resultant in heavy mental agony and financial loss. The complainant states that being attracted by the advertisement made by the first opposite party in newspapers, they have booked two tickets for pilgrimage to European countries by paying a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- each. The opposite party assured the complainant’s that he will arrange food and accommodation throughout the journey and tickets through air and super fast trains and high quality facilities for visiting several pilgrim centers. The said journey was proposed to start on 11/05/2015. The complainant’s made all arrangements for the journey and had conveyed their relatives about it. But on 08/05/2015 the first opposite party informed the complainant over phone that their visa was rejected, and they had to reach Mumbai for attending an interview at the Embassy for arranging the visa and that the opposite party will make arrangements for the same. Accordingly the complainant boarded to Mumbai by flight on 10/05/2015. The complainant states that they had to stay in Mumbai for 3 days at their own expense. During that stay the opposite party informed them that they could not arrange visa as promised and they are prepared to refund the amount collected from them for the journey. Accordingly the complainant returns and contacted the opposite parties on 28/05/2015 for collecting the amount. But opposite parties sought intervals for at least 10 occasions for returning the amount. Hence he had approached before this Forum seeking compensation of Rs.55,000/- each and also to return the balance amount of Rs.46,560/- alongwith  the cost of this litigation.

The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. Opposite parties entered appearance through counsel and filed a detailed version denying all the allegations of the complainant. According to the opposite parties the 2^nd opposite party is an unnecessary party and he has nothing to do with the tour operation. They have also raised objection regarding the jurisdiction. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint since the first opposite party is operating his office at Pala and no part of the transaction had taken place at Palakkad. The complainants directly approached the first opposite party in his office at Pala and booked two tickets and obtained payment receipts. Apart from that, there is no latches on their part and no deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint. They had made all the arrangements as promised. But the complainants could not travel for want of proper visa. The visa was rejected by the Embassy and that is very much known to the complainants. As per the terms and conditions of the brochure, “ Visa granting is a sole discretion of the concerned Embassy or Consulate. Visa fees and other expenses such as hotel booking advance, ticket advance are not refundable if visa is rejected. Personnel interview at the concern consulate if required candidates has to go for the interview at their own cost” and it was agreed upon by the complainants. The first opposite party had made arrangements for the to and fro travels to Mumbai by flight, for an amount of Rs.14,200/- each, visa charges Rs.6000/- each, Rs.2000/- as insurance charges, and stay of the complainants and taxi  charges there at Mumbai for attending interview in the Consulate general office at Mumbai. The expenses to the tune of Rs.46,560/- (in total) incurred in this regard was deducted by the first opposite party and they have returned the balance amount paid by the complainants without any delay. Hence the complaint is devoid of any merits and it has to be dismissed with compensatory cost.

The complainant filed chief affidavit and opposite party filed application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant. The application was allowed and the complainant was cross examined as PW1 and Ext. A1-A8 were marked. Opposite parties also filed affidavits and complaint filed an application seeking permission to cross examine opposite party. The application was allowed and opposite party was examined as DW1. Ext. B1- B7 was marked. Evidence was closed. Matter was heard.

Issues that arise for consideration

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?

Issues 1 & 2

We have perused the documents as well as affidavits produced from both sides. Ext. A1 and Ext. B1 are the brochure issued by the opposite parties regarding the terms and conditions of the journey. From Ext.B1 it is evident that, “Visa granting is a sole discretion of the concerned embassy or consulate. Visa fees and others expenses such as hotel booking advance, ticket advance are not refundable if visa is rejected. Personnel interview at the concern consulate if required candidates has to go for the interview at their own cost”. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that opposite party has made all necessary arrangements and filed the required application with documents for granting visa. Unfortunately the visa was not granted by the Embassy and that had resulted to the return of the amount paid by the complainants. They also submits that they had taken the expenses for the complainants for travelling to Mumbai and back for the interview before Embassy. They had also taken all necessary steps including the five tickets for the complainants for European trip. According to the complainant they have spend the entire amount for attending an interview before the consulate of Mumbai. But during cross examination it is admitted by PW1 (in page 3 of the deposition).  tIm¬kpteÁv Øm]\¯n lmPcmIphm\pÅ ^vssfÁv Sn¡Áv FXnÀI£n Øm]\w F\n¡v FSp¯p X¶p. (amÀ¡vUv Akv FIvkn._n.3). AhÀ F{X NmÀÖv sImSp¯sX¶v F\n¡dnbnÃ. ... kp[ojv (FXnÀI£n Ab¨ BÄ) sâ hml\¯nemWv R§Ä tlm«entebv¡pw, t_mws_ tIm¬kpteÁntebv¡pw k©cn¨Xv. XmakkuIcyw FXnÀI£n GÀs¸Sp¯n.  Rm³ ]Ww sImSp¯p F¶Xn\v tcJbnÃ. CâvÀhyp Ignªv Xncn¨v hcphm\pÅ dnt«¬ Sn¡Ápw FXnÀI£n Øm]\w FSp¯p X¶ncp¶p. (dn«¬ Sn¡Áv amÀ¡Uv Bkv FInkn._n.4). R§Ä c­pt]cpsSbpw hnk NmÀÖv BcmWv sI«nbsX¶v F\n¡dnbnÃ. FXnÀI£nbmWv sI«nbXv F\n¡dnbnÃ. hnk \ntj[n¨Xv Fw_knbmsW¶ Imcyw F\n¡dnbnÃ. CâvÀhyqhn\v lmPcmbncp¶p. ^ew F\n¡dnbnÃ. hnk F´psIm­v \nckn¨psh¶v F\n¡dnbnÃ. bptdm]y³ bm{Xbv¡v th­ Sn¡Áv _p¡v sNbvX Imcy¯ns\¡pdn¨v F\n¡dnbnÃ. Fsâbpw `mcybpsSbpw bm{Xbv¡pÅ kpc£ C³jqd³kv kw_Ôn¨pÅ t]mfnknbpsS Imcyw F\n¡dnbnÃ.

 The first opposite party further submits that they had also taken air tickets for European countries for the complainant after making huge amount which is evident from Ext.B7.

The complainant had pleaded that he had approached on the first opposite party on several occasions and the amount was paid by way of cheque and cash. At the time of cross examination he had admitted that he had received the entire amount by way of cash. He had also submitted that he incurred loss by closing his shop when he went to asked for the return of the amount. But during the cross examination on page 6 of the deposition he had admitted that   Cu Bhiy¯n\mbn ZÀi\ If£³kv Xpd¡mXncp¶n«nÃ. ZÀi\If£³kv Xpd¡m¯Xpaqew km¼¯nI \ãw D­mbn F¶v ]dbp¶Xv icnbÃ.  ZÀi\ If£³kv 40 tPmen¡mÀ hÀ¡v sN¿p¶p­v. aÌÀ tdmÄ kq£n¡p¶p­v. skbnÂkv _p¡v, AÁ³U³kv cPnÌÀ F¶nh kq£n¡p¶p­v. Cu IS Xpd¡mXncp¶n«nÃ. I¨hS¯n \ãap­mbn«pt­m F¶ Imcyw ta tcJIÄ ]cntim[n¨m Adnbmw. 2015 sabv Pq¬ amk§fn \ãw h¶p F¶v ImWnbv¡phm³ tcJIsfm¶panÃ. ISbnse I¨hS¯n\v IrXyamb IW¡p­v. Fs´¦nepw \ãap­mbn«ps­¦n IW¡v t\m¡nbm ImWm³ ]Ápw. bmsXmcp \ãhpw hcm¯XpsIm­mWv tUm¡psaâvkv lmPcm¡m¯Xv F¶v ]dbp¶Xv icnbÃ. The complainant had also admitted that the entire arrangements at Mumbai were done by the first opposite party at their expenses. He had also stated that he does not know the reason for the rejection of visa. On appreciation of the evidence produced, it is revealed that there is no evidence before the Forum regarding the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, and  that complainant had suffered any loss as alleged in the complaint. Hence we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and  the complaint is dismissed without cost.

  Pronounced in the open court on this the  16^th February 2017.   

            Sd/-

     Smt. Shiny. P.R

                         President

                             Sd/-

             Smt. Suma. K.P

                           Member

                               Sd/-                              Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                          Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1-  Photocopy of brochure of tour programme containing photographs of complainants.

Ext.A2-  Photocopy of brochure of tour programme

Ext.A3 –  Bank payment slip counterfoil showing payment of Rs.1,35,000/-.

Ext.A4-  Bank payment slip counterfoil showing payment of Rs.1,35,000/-

Ext.A5 – Photocopy of statement signed by first complainant (marked with objection)

Ext.A6 – Letter dated 2/5/2015 issued to The Swiss Consulate General  by Peace Holyland Mission

Ext.A7 – Letter dated 10/5/2015 issued by St.John the Baptist Church, Kaloor to The Visa Officer, Consulate General of Switzerland

Ext.A8 – Copy of visa rejection letter issued by Switzerland consulate, Mumbai.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1- Brochure of tour programme

Ext.B2- Interview letter issued by Consulate General of Switzerland

Ext.B3- Copy of Go Air (India) Ltd. Air ticket from Cochi to Mumbai

Ext.B4-  Copy of   Air ticket from   Mumbai to Cochin

Ext.B5  - Insurance Policy taken in the name of complainant

Ext.B6 – Letter issued to 2^nd complainant by TrawellTage CoverMore

Ext.B7 – Ticket booking certificate issued by Srilankan Airways.

Witness marked on the side of complainant

PW1 – Shaji Jacob

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

DW1 – Babu Thomas

Cost Allowed

No cost allowed