Haryana

StateCommission

A/506/2015

KUONI TRAVEL(INDIA) PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJ KUMAR AGGARWAL - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT KAPOOR

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      506 of 2015

Date of Institution:      04.06.2015

Date of Decision :       05.11.2015

 

1.     Kuoni Travel (India) Private Limited, 8^th Floor, Tower-A, Urmi Estate, 95- Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013.

 

2.     Kuoni Travel (India) Private Limited, Mumbai, Branch Office at SCO No.31, Amba Complex, Near Capitol Square, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt, Haryana.

 

         Both through Sh. Avanendra Avuthu – General Counsel & Compliance Officer, its authorized signatory.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Raj Kumar Aggarwal s/o Sh. Lakhan Lal, Office No.28-E, Block Vishnu Market, Kaithal, District Kaithal, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Ritesh Kumar Bansal, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Kuoni Travel (India) Private Limited and another (for short ‘Kuoni Travel’)-Opposite Parties, are in appeal against the order dated March 24^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.192 of 2013.

2.      The opposite parties published advertisement offering tour and travel to different countries of the world. The complainant booked six days European Delight Tour Programme for two members of the family, that is, the complainant himself and his wife. The expenses for the above said tour were Rs.1,64,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.80,000/- vide cheque No.21686 dated 14.5.2013 (Exhibit C-1). The tour programme was scheduled from June 12^th, 2013. According to the complainant, the opposite parties had taken all the responsibilities to get all the requirements completed, that is, Visa, Air Ticket and accommodation for which he handed over all the required documents to the officers of the opposite parties. Not receiving any Air Ticket and other documents, the complainant sent e-mail to the opposite parties. The opposite parties informed the complainant vide Exhibit C-6 that his Visa had been cancelled and the amount deposited by him had been forfeited. The relevant part of the information (Exhibit C-6) received is as under:-

“As discussed your visa is refused from France embassy & your all services are confirmed our side like air tickets, insurance, hotel, Transfer & Visa fees. Kindly find the below cancellation charges as per below.

Please note cancellation charges are as per brochure INR 80,000/- p.p. + ticket cancellation charges INR46,000/- p.p.”

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that his Visa was cancelled due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties because all the formalities regarding tour programme were to be completed by the opposite parties.

4.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that the complainant had booked the tour departing on 12^th June, 2013 from the Ambala branch of the opposite parties. The complainant had gone through the terms and conditions which were supplied to him. The complainant was also explained that the issuance of visa was purely and undeniably the prerogative of Embassies/Consulates of independent nations and the opposite parties had no role to pay except to act as a document courier agent between the complainant and the Embassy.  The amount of Rs.80,000/- was paid and the balance amount was to be paid as per the payment schedule. Denying any kind of deficiency in service, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      After evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, the District Forum accepted complaint directing the opposite parties as under:-

“…..we allow the complaint and direct the Ops after the deduction of Rs.10,000/- per person (total Rs.20,000/- for service charges from the amount of Rs.1,34,022/- and to pay Rs.1,14,022/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment suffered by the complainant and also burdened to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation charges. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of commencement of this order till its payment.” 

6.      Indisputably, the complainant had booked a tour programme for Europe. It has also come on the record that he paid Rs.1,34,022/- to the opposite parties. However, before proceeding on tour, the Visa was cancelled. As per advertisement (Annexure A/4), Air Ticket, residence for stay, tax, Visa, travel insurance, food and other formalities were included in the package. A perusal of Annexure A/5 shows that cost of the Visa was included in the charges for tour. However, the opposite parties failed take Visa from the embassy. The perusal of Standard Form for refusal of a visa shows that the French Embassy in New Delhi refused the Visa on the ground as under:-

“2.     Justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not provided.”

“8.    The information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable.”

7.      Both the grounds on which Visa was refused, were to be explained by the opposite parties as it is the opposite parties, who were to arrange Visa. None of the grounds of refusal of Visa was attributable to the complainant.

8.      Thus, no responsibility could be fastened upon the complainant to refuse Visa and the complainant could not be burdened with the forfeiture of the entire amount. Thus, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference.

9.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 05.11.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL