OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C. 38/15
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
3)Md Jamatul Islam - Member
Sri Satish Kumar Sehgal - Complainant
Son of Late R.N.Sehgal,
Resident of Nirmal Sagar Apartment,
4th Floor, Old Post Office Lane,
Rehabari Tilali, P.S.Paltan Bazar,Guwahati,
Pin-781008
-vs-
1) Pushpak Air Travels, - Opp. parties
Royal Centre,Ground Floor
Opposite S.B.Deorah College,
G.S.Road,Guwahati-781007
Represented by its Proprietor
2) Sri Pradip Baruah
Authorised official,
Pushpak Air Travels,
Royal Centre,Ground Floor
Opposite S.B.Deorah College,
G.S.Road,Guwahati-781007
Appearance-
Learned advocates for the complainant - Mr. Ankumoni Nath
Date of argument- 29.8.18
Date of judgment- 20.9.18
JUDGMENT
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1) The complaint filed by Sri Satish Kr.Sehgal against Pushpak Air Travels and Sri Pradip Baruah was admitted on 16.5.15 and notices was served on them and they filed joint written statement on 4.8.15. Thereafter, the complainant filed his evidence and evidence of one Mrs. Angela U.Umbay, but at the time of cross examination of C.W.s both the opp.parties are found absent without step and hence the case against them is proceeding on exparte vide our order dtd. 28.6.17. Finally Ld. advocate Mr. Ankumoni Nath filed written exparte argument on behalf of the complainant and he also forwarded his oral argument on 29.8.18 and today we deliver the exparte judgment which is as below.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant approached Opp.Party No.1 Pushpak Air Travels (Guwahati) on 4.9.14 for booking tickets to travel Kolkata to Manila via Hong Kong on 18.9.14 and from Manila to Kolkata via Hong Kong on 3.10.14 and asked the opp.party No.1 to arrange Philippines visa for him and Opp.Party No.1 agreed to do so and then he paid Rs.30,000/- for the aforesaid air tickets and Rs.4,200/- for arranging Philippines visa, in total he paid Rs.40,700/- vide cheque No. 587544 dtd.6.9.14 drawn on Fancy Bazar branch of HDFC Bank and opp.party also issued due money receipt to him and opp.party issued air tickets to him on 6.9.14 of Cathay Pacific Airways (CX) 5169, Cathay Pacific Airways (CX) 919, Cathay Pacific Airways (CX) 900 and Cathay Pacific Airways (CX) 5168 operated by Hong Long Dragon Airline for journey scheduled on 18.9.14 from Kolkata to Hong Kong on 1.15 a.m. from Hong Kong to Manila at 2.35 a.m. and in the return journey scheduled on 3.9.14 from Manila to Hong Kong at 12-30 p.m. and Hong Kong to Kolkata at 10.35 p.m. and Opp.Party No.2 asked the complainant some documents i.e. passport validity more than six months, visa application form filled up and signed , three recent pass port size colour photograph with white back ground (size 3.5 c.m. to 4.5 c.m), covering letter to the Embassy mentioning purpose of journey, duration of stay etc., employment / business proof, accommodation proof or hotel booking confirmation in Philippines, confirmed return ticket, personal bank statement of last six months with seal and signed of the bank officer with minimum balance Rs.80,000/-, last three years income tax paper, N.O.C. from India Organisation with employee; and accordingly, he had submitted that all the required documents to the opp.party for provide him Philippines visa on 4.9.14 itself; The opp.party thoroughly verified the documents submitted by him and accepted the documents with any objection. But after lapse of many days, no objection came from the opp.parties as regards the insufficiency of documents submitted by him for obtaining visa and as such rejection of visa on the ground of insufficient documents does not arise and he had travel to Philippines few months back on 15.3.14 and returned on 6.4.2014 and on that occasion he booked his air tickets from N.C.S. Travel Agency, Guwahati and the said agency had also provided him Philippines visa. After considering documents filed by him and documents were considered by the embassy as valid and sufficient for grant visa and as such the question of deficiency of documents alleged by the opp.party is totally incorrect. He was under impression that the opp.party would provide visa to him in time and on that faith he had approached air tickets for the rest part of his journey that is from Guwahati to Kolkota on 17.9.2014 at 17:55 hours and return journey on 4.10.2014 from Kolkata to Guwahati at 6:05 hours from S.Kumar and Brothers , Guwahati and he had to pay Rs.6,500/- to S.Kumar and Brothers for booking the tickets of the said journey . His journey from Kolkata to Hong Kong was scheduled on 18.9.15 at 1-15 a.m., but to his utter surprise the Opp.Party No.2, Sri Pradip Baruah, the authorized official of Opp.Party No.1, vide an e.mail dtd.16.9.2014 at 1.07 p.m., informed him that documents provided by him for obtaining Philippines visa was not sufficient as per the Embassy norms and accordingly, the documents were not accepted for proper processing and he further alleged that he (complainant) instructed them to cancel the reservation of tickets of her telephone and accordingly they had charged a penalty of Rs.6,388/- for cancellation of tickets and visa miscellaneous charge of Rs.1300/- and also asked him to collected the visa documents and Rs.33,012/- after deduction of Rs.7,688/- The opp.party had refrained from intimating him specifically as to which documents found additional by Embassy and also failed to show any written communication from the Embassy vide which visa application was rejected citing reasons of such rejection. In the aforesaid situation it is established that the opp.party had not submitted any application along with required documents submitted by the complainant in the Embassy for obtaining visa for him. Even though they received visa obtaining charge from him and thereby the opp.parties deceived him and made him to suffer huge loss in terms of money and also made him to suffer mentally. He sent a legal notice on opp.party on 29.9.2014 claiming entire amount made by him to them towards Air tickets fare and even for providing visa for him and also paying compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- due to such negligent act on the part of them and they replied to the legal notice vide letter dtd. 24.10.2014 giving certain baseless explanation. The cause of action of this case arose on 16.9.14. He prays for directing opposite parties to pay him an amount of Rs.40,700/- which had been paid by him to them to providing aforesaid air tickets and the Philippines visa and to pay Rs.2,00,000/-for causing mental agony and physically suffered to him as well as Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for loss suffered by him as he spent huge amount of money for his proposed marriage ceremony to be performed at Philippines which had to be cancelled and rescheduled by him due to negligent act of opp.party and to pay interest @ 18% per annum.
3) We have perused the complaint and the pleading of the parties . It is found that the opp.parties through their joint written statement states that they all required elements were received from the complainant , but due to certain holidays and some other such type of in-convenience visa as sought by the complainant could not provide in time and Opp.Party No.2 informed the complainant that due to technical difficulties regarding insufficiency of documents visa could not be prepared and it was duly informed the complainant and receiving e.mail about the information and the difficulties the complainant was pleased to cancel visa and ticket and accordingly Opp.Party No.2 inform him to take back his deposited money as per norms of the air ways, but she did not come forward to take his remaining balance of his deposited money against visa and as such there is no any negligence on the part of them. From the written statement of the opp.parties it is found that they admitted that they all the required elements were received from the complainant, due to certain holidays and some other such type of inconvenience visa as such by the complainant could not have been provided in time. Thus, it is a clear admitted that due to negligence of the opp.parties the visa as such by the complainant could not have been procured in time . Secondly, they also admitted that they informed the complainant to take back his deposited money after deduction as per names of the airways. This version of the opp.party also infers that due to their negligence the visa was not procured in time and in result the complainant could not performed the journey in scheduled date.
4) It is both sides’ admitted fact that the complainant Sri Satish Kr.Sehgal on 4.9.14 purchased air tickets to travel from Kolkata to Manila (Philippines) via Hong-Kong on 18.9.14 and from Manila to Kolkata via Hong-Kong on 3.10.14 and he asked them to arrange Philippines visa for him for his necessary journey.
5) From the evidence of the complainant, it is crystal clear that he paid Rs.36,500/- to Opp.Party No.1 as ticket charge from Kolkata to Manila vice versa and Rs.4,200/- for arranging Philippines visa vide cheque No.587544 dtd. 6.9.14 drawn on Fancy Bazar branch , HDFC Bank and Opp.Party No.1 also received the cheque amount.
6) It is also clear from the evidence of the complainant that on 6.9.14 the Opp.Party No.1 provide air tickets to the complainant to travel from Kolkata to Manila on 18.9.14 and from Manila to Kolkata on 3.10.14.
7) From evidence of the complainant, it is seen that on 4.9.14 he received an e.mail from Opp.Party No.2 asking him to provide documents for Philippines visa . Accordingly he furnished all the documents as per the checklist and also signed application form for Non-immigrant visa.
8) From evidence of the complainant it is also clear that he purchased ticket for travel from Guwahati to Kolkata on 17.9.14 at 17-55 hours and return journey on 4.10.2014 from Kolkata to Guwahati at 6.05 hours paying an amount of Rs.6,500/-, but on 16.9.14 at 1.07 a.m. sent an e.mail from Opp.Party No.2 that documents submitted by him for Philippines visa was not sufficient and therefore, embassy has rejected the visa application, but Opp.Party No.2 did not inform him as to which two documents was found insufficient to the embassy. Thus, it is established that Opp.Party No.2 did not inform the complainant as to which documents was found insufficient by the Embassy and opp.party did not ask him to provide additional documents . The opp.party is also found not furnishing copy of the communication from the Embassy as to insufficiency of the documents. Thus, it must be presumed that the ground of insufficiency of documents is a false ground which was made by the opp.parties to save them from negligence they did in complying for Philippine visa. In this case the Opp.Party No.1 & 2 by filing a joint written statement clearly states that though all required elements were received from the complainant but due to certain holidays and some other such type of inconveniences, VISA as sought by the complainant could not provided in time. This version of the opp.parties is a clear admission on the part of the opp.parties that the complainant fulfilled all required formalities such as filing application for VISA as well as filing requisite documents for obtaining philippine VISA for his journey from Kolkata to Manila via Honglong on 18.9.2014 and Manila to Kolkata via Hongkong on 3.10.2014 and the opp.parties collected the VISA application and requisite documents from the complainant on 4.9.14 and they also took responsibility to obtain the said VISA from the Ambassy of Philippine at New Delhi for and on behalf of the complainant, but they failed to obtain the said VISA and they failed to obtain the said VISA for their negligence committed in filing the VISA application which is that they failed to file the VISA application with the Ambassy in due time although the complainant had submitted properly filled up VISA application and requisite documents to them in due time. Thus, it is crystal clear that, the opp.parties failed to collect the Philippine VISA for the complainant for their own negligence and for that act they are solely responsible. Thus, it is crystal clear that the documents furnished by the complainant for Philippines visa were sufficient documents, but for not taking active state by opp.party the Philippines visa was not issued and ground of rejection of visa application is a false ground.
9) From evidence of the complainant it is also seen that as Philippines visa was not issued he had to cancel the ticket from Kolkata Manila and Manila to Kolkata , one day ahead of the journey and he also cancel tickets for journey from Guwahati to Kolkata and Kolkata to Guwahati with penalty due to cancellation of Philippines visa. Thus, it is establish that due to fault and negligence on the part of opp.parties the complainant had to cancel all the tickets.
10) From the evidence of the complainant it is seen that the complainant planned the scheduled journey to the Philippines to marry Ms.Angela U.Umbay, resident of Philippines . A social/sustomary marriage ceremony of the complainant with the said bride was fixed/ arranged in her native place. The complainant had spent a huge amount for the arrangement of the reception of his intended marriage to be solemnized at her native place. Not only that, the complainant had also made official arrangements for ensuring the presence of the Hon’ble Mayor, Municipality of Magsingal, Republic of Philippines as an official witness to perform the marriage legally. Besides the local people and relatives of Miss Angela, the complainant had also invited a few of his close friends and relatives from different countries to attend his marriage ceremony. The complainant had delegated the responsibility to his proposed bride to arrange everything for reception of his friends and relatives at Philippines by facilitating her by handing over a HDFC FOREX CARD purchased by the complainant from NCS Travels and Tours P.Ltd.at Kolkata when the complainant visited Philippines on the earlier occasion in the month of March,2014 so that she could spend money of the complainant for the said purpose. The proposed bride of the complainant used the said FOREX CARD of the complainant for the above mentioned reception. The bride of the complainant had also spend substantial amount for the said arrangement from her own source and later on, the complainant paid her by purchasing another HDFC FOREX PLUS CARD when the complainant went there in the month of November,2014. But, due to the aforesaid negligent /deficient act of the opp.parties, all such arrangements had to be cancelled by the complainant, the complainant had to reinform all the invites about the cancellation of his marriage, consequently, they had also to suffer monetary loss for cancellation of their tickets etc. The complainant has suffered a huge monetary loss for sudden cancellation of the arrangements made by him for the reception of his marriage at Philippines and all other ancillary expenses thereto. He forfeited huge money which was paid by him by way of advance money for such arrangement. Not to speak of monetary loss, the complainant has morally broken down and suffered mentally for cancellation of his marriage due to the aforesaid negligent act of the opp.parties which was fixed on a much prior date i.e. in the month of March of this year itself when the complainant went to Philippines on the previous occasion. Due to the above stated negligent act of the opp.parties, the complainant has suffered irreparable loss.
Thus, it is established that the complainant had to suffer huge loss as he failed to reach Manila in due time for solemnizing his marriage with Ms.Angela U.Umbe there and re-schduled his marriage with her in a subsequent date. Therefore, we hold that for cancelling of the first date of marriage of the complainant and to reschedule his said marriage which was caused due to negligence of the opp.parties, the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
11) It is also found that the complainant had paid Rs.40,700/- to the opp.parties for air tickets from Kolkata to Manila and Manila to Kolkata and procuring visa of Philippines and that amount was not yet returned to the complainant by the opp.parties and therefore, the opp.parties are liable to refund that amount to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum. Secondly, for causing harassment and mental agony by the opp.parties to the complainant, they are to liable to pay atleast Rs.20,000/- as compensation . Thirdly, the opp.parties are also liable to pay him atleast Rs.10,000/- for cost of proceeding.
12) Closing our discussion as above, we have found that the complainant has a prima facie case against the opp.parties which he has also succeeded to prove. Accordingly, the complaint against opp.parties namely, Pushpak Air Travels,Guwahati and Sri Pradip Baruah, the authorized official of Puspak Air Travels (Opp.Party No.1 & 2) is allowed on exparte, and they are directed to refund Rs.40,700/- to the complainant with interest @12% per annum from 16.5.15 (date of filing of the complaint) till satisfaction of the award and also to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensationfor compelling the complainant to re-schedule his marriage, with Ms.Angel U.Umbe due to deficiency of service by the opp.parties towards the complainant and also to pay him Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him as well as Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceeding, to which , both the opp.parties are jointly and severally liable. They are directed to pay the awarded amount within 45 days, in default, other amounts shall also carry interest at the same rate.
Given under our hands and seal on this 20th September ,2018.
(Smt Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Jamatul Islam) (Md.Sahadat Hussain) Member Member President
