D.O.F. 17.12.2010
D.O.O. 28.07.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011.
C.C.No.295/2010
Kolangarath Valappil Mohanan
S/o. Late Govindan Achari,
Kandamkulangara,
P.O. Kunhimangalam, : Complainant
Kannur District.
P.P. Husain Koya,
General Manager,
Fathima Tours & Travels,
Super Corner, : Opposite Party
Nr. Govt. Training School,
Caltex, Thalassery Road,
Kannur.
(Rep. by Adv. E.P. Hamzakutty)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay ` 1,63,800 as compensation with cost.
The case in brief of the complainant is that he had been worked in Gulf about 9 years and returned during 2006. Later eventhough he had tried for another job in Gulf it was not become fruitful . Therefter as per an advertisement in New Paper he had contacted the opposite party and he demanded ` 23,500 for visiting visa for 7 days. Accordingly the complainant along with his nephew T.V. Sreejesh contacted the opposite party on 13.09.2010 and handed over the passport and ` 5,000 upon a representation made by the opposite party that the balance amount will be given at the time of okeying the ticket. Subsequently on 25.09.2010, ` 18,500 was handed over to the opposite party, since visa was ready and on 03.10.2010 he has started his journey from Airport, Kozhikode and reached at Dubai International Airport on the next day. At the time of leaving India, the opposite party has given the phone number of one Nachi, who is the representative of opposite party in Gulf. The complainant had made genuine attempts for a job and for an employment visa. But on expiry of 30 days, the above said Nachi informed the complainant that the period of visa was already expired. The complainant came to know the fact that the visa has to be renewed after 30 days only when the above said Nachi informed him the same. At that moment complainant realized that the opposite party had cheated him by giving visa of 30 days instead of 70 days. The opposite party was not ready to heed his words, whenever the complainant tried to contact him. The complainant had managed to get eight hundred Dirham from his friends and approached the above said Nachi to renew the visa, but he has not heeded the words of the complainant. Meanwhile the opposite party’s two persons went to his house and they threatened the complainant’s wife. Later on the complainant was forced to pay 300 Dirham as fine and 1350 Dirham for ticket for Emigrates flight and reached Nedumbasseri Airport on 15.11.2010. The opposite party had issued visa for 30 days by saying that it is for 70 days and has not renewed the visa. Because of this the complainant had lost his job and had suffered so much of mental , physical as well as financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed his version.
The opposite party filed version denying that the complainant had approached him for a visiting visa. He had approached for 40 days trourist visa. The opposite party told to the complainant on 01.09.10 that the visa will get extended for another 30 days and for that the complainant has to approach the visa agent at Dubai before the expiry of 40 days. The averment that the complainant had visited the opposite party’s office on 13.09.2010 is not correct. The visa of the complainant was ready on 05.09.2010. The opposite party had issued a computer print out of the instruction which is to be followed by a person who is conducting journey as per Dubai tourist visiting visa. He had given the original passport and ` 5000 after he had satisfied with the above conditions. Moreover, the opposite party had cleared the fact that ` 23,500 is required including the ticket and if he has any intention to stay there for more than 40 days he has to extend the visa by giving 800 Dirhams.
The opposite party had informed the complainant that the visa is ready and accordingly he has paid ` 18,000 and kept ` 500 as balance and agreed to pay it later and put his signature in the opposite party’s register and left India. At the time of his departure the opposite party had given the phone number of one Nachi. The opposite party informed the complainant that he cannot search for or do any job during visiting visa and he has either to extend the visa or to return to India within the prescribed period or else he has to pay penalty and the entire visa transactions of opposite party will be in peril. The complainant had boarded out at Dubai Air port – II and not in I as stated by the complainant. The averment of the complainant that he had attended for interviews and job was promised by some companies etc are against the instructions given to the complainant at the time of issuing visa. He left India with an assurance that he will obey the laws in Gulf countries. The complainant knows that tourist visa will not be allowed for 70 days. visa was given for 40 days and he can extend the visa for 30 days more by giving 800 Dirham. The complainant had contacted the above said Nachi before expiry of 40 days and he had given the number of one Mr.Zinuddeen. The complainant contacted the above Zainuddeen with 350 Dirhams instead of 800 Dirhams and he left the place with a promise that he will came with 800 Dirhams. But the complainant never contacted the above said Zainuddeen with 800 Dirhams. The opposite party was tried to contact the complainant since he was neither returned nor extended the visa, but his phone was switched off. So the opposite party had issued a post card informing either to extend visa or to return back soon. But all the efforts were in vein. So the agent who had issued the visa contacted the opposite party and informed the aftereffect of overstay of the complainant. Later on the opposite party contacted the complainant, he requested the opposite party to help him by giving necessary money for his return ticket. So the opposite party issued ` 21,000 through one visa agent Ameen at Calicut. The complainant admitted that he had received 1,666 Dirham which amounts to ` 21,000. But eventhough the complainant promised to return ` 21,000 he later on given assurance in writing that he will return ` 15,000. So the above complaint is filed only to escape from the liability. It is interesting to say that he has lost his job. The complainant has not suffered any loss. A person who was going to gulf countries with visiting visa has duty bound to return within the specified time. This complaint is filed only to tackle over the liability of the complainant to opposite party. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2, DW1 and DW2 and Exts. A1 to A7 and B1 to B9.
The complainant’s case is that eventhough he approached the opposite party for visiting visa for 70 days and given ` 23,500, they had issued a tourist visa for 30 days and the same was not disclosed to the complainant. Because of this he had suffered so much of financial, physical and mental hardships. In order to prove this contention the complainant examined PW1 and PW2 and produced documents such as visa, air ticket, return air ticket, receipt, lawyer notices issued by opposite party, copy of passport etc. In order to disprove the case of the complainant opposite party also examined DW1 and DW2 and produced documents such as register, post card, agreement, instruction with respect to the journey, visa copy, complainant’s passport copy, ticket copy and receipt etc.
The opposite party admits that the complainant had approached them for a visa but not for a visiting visa but for a tourist visa for 40 days. In order to prove this the opposite party has produced Ext. B1 and B5. Ext.B1 is the register kept by the opposite party. The Ext. B1(a) is the page No.182 of the Ext.B1 register. In that page it is seen written as “05.09.2010, visa received, Fsâ ]mkvt]mÀ«v, hnkn-än-TKv hnk, FbÀ Sn¡äv (Return ticket cancellation) F¶nh Rm³ ssI¸-äp-IbpT CXv Hcp 40 day SqdnÌv hnkn-än-TKv hnk Bb-Xn-\m 5000 Dirham ssI¿n Icp-tX-p¶ Imc-yT F\n-¡-dn-bm-T.” After this the complainant K.V. Mohanan had signed. He admitted his signature at the time of examination. He deposed that “Ct¸mÄ Fs¶ ImWn¨ _p¡nse H¸v FsâXm-Wv. Marked as Ext.B1. Bb-Xnse page No.182 Ext.B1(a)bn 22.09.10\v visa In«nb Ah-k-c-¯n Rm³ FgpXn H¸n-«-Xm-Wv.” This shows that the complainant is very well aware that the visa issued to him is a tourist visiting visa for 40 days. Moreover Ext.A1 and B5 are copy of visa issued to the complainant and on the face of it, the word ‘tourist’ was written. So the contention of the complainant that he was not aware of the fact that the opposite party had issued tourist visa for 40 days cannot be taken into account. Above all the complainant himself admits that he had been worked in Gulf for 9 years. So the complainant has opportunity to know about the details regarding different types of visa and the guide lines which a person has to follow who has decided for a journey to gulf. Moreover he admitted that he had been stayed in gulf for 42 days and paid penalty for 2 days only. So the circumstances also corraborate the contention of opposite party. So we hold the view that the complainant is well aware of the fact that the visa issued to him is a tourist visa for 40 days and the contention put forwarded by the complainant that the opposite party had cheated the complainant by giving tourist visa for 30 days under the label of visiting visa for 70 days are made only for the purpose of the case.
The another contention raised by the complainant that due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service the complainant had suffered so much of difficulties in order to get a visa and had lost job. The opposite party has produced Ext.B4, instruction issued for the persons who are intended to travel through tourist visiting visa. The opposite party contended that they had issued a copy of the same to the complainant and the complainant had put his signature on the same. The complainant has no case that it is not his signature. The instructions are clearly shows that the period of visa is for 40 days and if he intended to stay more than that he was to extend the visa for 30 days by giving 800 Dirhams. It is also specifically stated in B4 that if he had stayed there more than 40 days without extending the visa he has to pay penalty. Eventhough the complainant contended that such instructions are not told to him by opposite party, he has no case that Ext.B4 is not served upon him. The opposite party has produced Ext.B3 agreement and B8 receipt for 1666 Dirham. The complainant has a case that opposite party has made this agreement by forcibly putting the signature of the complainant in this Ext.B3 document. But he has not filed any complaint before the police with respect to this. He deposed before the Forum with respect to this. He deposed before this Forum that “FXnÀI-£n-bpsS Hm^o-kn-te¡v hnfn¨p hcp¯n H¸n«v hm§n-b-Xm-Wv. 21,000/- FgpXn sh«n-bn-«mWv 15,000/- Fs¶-gp-Xn-bXv. {]kvXpX Hm^o-knsâ ASp-¯mWv I®qÀ t]meokv tÌj³ ØnXn sN¿p-¶-Xv. t]meo-kn ]cmXn sImSp-¯n-cp-¶n-Ã.” Moreover he has no case that Ext.B8 is a concocted one. The evidence of DW2 also substantiate the case of opposite party. So from the facts, circumstances and from the available evidence on record we are of the opinion that opposite party has not committed any unfair practice or deficiency of service and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly.
In the result, complaint dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Copy of visa dated 05.09.2010.
A2. Copy of online ticket.
A3. Return ticket.
A4. Invoice dated 13.11.2010.
A5. Lawyer notice dated 10.02.2011.
A6. Lawyer notice dated 10.02.2011.
A7. Copy of passport.
Exhibits for the opposite parties
B1. Passenger’s details register.
B2. Post card letter dated 10.11.2010
B3. Affidavit in Stamppaper.
B4. Paper containing Instructions to complainant.
B5. Copy of Visa dated 03.11.2010.
B6. Copy of passport
B7. Copy of ticket.
B8. Evidence to prove collection of 1666 Dirham by complainant.
B9. Kozhikode telecommunications – tel.No. and bill dates.
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
PW2. Sreejesh T.V.
Witness examined for opposite party
DW1. P.P. Hussainkoya
DW2. C.K. Aboobacker
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
