IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE  2^nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

      Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

       Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

CC.No.181/2018

Francy John,

S/o John Morris Advocate,

Pullkoodu, House No.177,

PSRA, Thangassery P.O., Kollam.                  :               Complainant

(By Adv.A.Mathew)

V/s

1. Royal Omania Tours and Travels Pvt.Ltd.,

    Palal Towers, Ravipuram,

    Cochin 682016.

     (By Adv.Niaz A.)

2.  Bindhu Thomas,

          Deputy Manager,

        Royal Omania Tours and Travels Pvt.Ltd.,

       Palai Towers, Ravipuram,

        Cochin 682016.                                                 :        Opposite parties

        (By Adv.Niaz A.)

ORDER

Smt.Sandhya Rani, B.Sc, LLB, Member

                This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

                The complainant is practicing Advocate at Kollam.  The 1^st opposite party Royal Omania Tours and Travels Pvt.Ltd. is a tour operator and the 2^nd opposite party is deputy manager of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant registered his name with the opposite parties for a tour package visiting the places Italy, Vatican, France and some other European countries for 17 days.  The tour was arranged to start on 08.05.2017 and ends on 25.05.2017.  On 03.05.2017 the complainant has remitted a total amount of Rs.1,95,000/- with opposite party by way of visa charge, food, accommodation etc and made all preparations for join the trip.  But on 07.05.2017 the opposite parties informed the complainant that his visa was rejected.  Thereafter the opposite parties refunded an amount of Rs.1,48,645/- after retaining an amount of Rs.37,855/- by way of Ticker fare and Rs.8,500/- by way of visa charge.  But there is no provision for such a deduction without any reason.  According to the complainant the above mentioned act of opposite parties are purely unfair trade practice and which caused much mental agony apart from financial loss to him.  Though the 2^nd opposite party had assured the complainant that they would repay the amount Rs.37.855/- while settling their amount with Air ways, but so far not repaid even after repeated demands.  In the above circumstances the complainant claims balance amount Rs.46,355/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- by way of notice charge.  Hence the complaint.

                1^st opposite party contented it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, having its registered office at Chennai and branch office at Ernakulam.  The company has no office at Kollam and no part of the transaction which is the subject matter of the complaint has taken place within the area of Kollam district.  The office of the 1^st opposite party is at Ernakulam and the employment and residence of the 2^nd opposite party is also at Ernakulam, therefore this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  The averments made in the complaint are without any bonafides and they are only self-serving statements.

                According to the 1^st opposite party they have organized a group tour to Europe commencing from 08.05.2017.  Accordingly details of the tour were made

known among the public.  On the basis of confirmed offers made by the customers, the group strength was fixed as 48 which included the tour leader who was the Senior Manager of 1^st opposite party.  The application for processing the visa along with the requisite documents submitted by the confirmed participants of the tour and visa fee were collected by the 1^st opposite party and submitted to Consulate General of Italy in Mumbai through VFS Global (Visa Facilitation Services).  Accordingly on being satisfied with the quality and economy, air tickets for all the 48 passengers were booked and other arrangements were made with the tour supplier.  Both the complainant and the opposite parties were legitimately expected that the visa would be issued to the complainant and he had made full tour cost Rs.1,95,000/- on 03.05.2017.  However though the office of the Consulate General of Italy in Mumbai issued visa to all the tour group members except the complainant even by 07.05.2017.  When the 1^st opposite party made enquiries with the office of the Consulate General of Italy in Mumbai as to the status of the application for visa made by the complainant, it was informed that the complainant’s application for visa to Europe has been rejected by the said office and the letter of rejection would be sent immediately.  In the above circumstances that the complainant could not join the group for the tour to Europe.  Thereafter the office of the Consulate General of Italy in Mumbai issued a letter dated 08.05.017 refusing to issue the visa to the complainant.  In the above circumstances, the tour group consisting of participants other than the complainant visited Europe as they have scheduled earlier.  In the aforesaid unfortunate situation the 1^st opposite party returned an amount of Rs.1,48,645/- to the  complainant, after deducting the visa charge of Rs.8,500/- and Airline ticket charge Rs.37,855/-.  The 2^nd opposite party had also informed the complainant regarding the above deductions through vide email dated 07.07.2017.  The opposite parties again contended that the Airline ticket charges had been fixed on

the basis of the tour group strength for the purpose of obtaining the same at the lowest price.  Even if any of the passengers fail to travel along with the group, the 1^st opposite party will not be entitled to get any refund on that count, for the reason that it is a group fare and the ticket charges are non-refundable.  As such payment of Rs.8,500/- as visa charges and Rs.37,855/- as Airline ticket charges are non-refundable from the recipients of such payments.  It is further contented that the 2^nd opposite party has neither sent any email dated 03.10.2017 as averred in the complainant nor any email dated 05.10.2018 as stated in 1^st document.  According to opposite parties there was neither any negligence nor any unfair trade practice from their part.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or other payment from the opposite parties. The opposite parties further pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

                In the light of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether this Forum/Commission has territorial  jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2 ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for in the complaint?
4. Relief and costs?

Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 documents.  Evidence on the side of opposite parties 1 & 2 consists of the oral evidence of DW1 and Exts.D1 to D3 documents.

Both sides have filed notes of arguments.  Heard both sides.

Point No.1

                The first and the foremost contention raised by the opposite parties in their written version is that the Consumer Forum, Kollam has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  According to them they have no office at Kollam.  The office of the 1^st opposite party is situated at Ernakulam and the employment and residence of 2^nd opposite party is also at Ernakulam so the Consumer Forum, Ernakulam alone is having jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  It is further contented that no part of the cause of action has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum and hence the Consumer Forum, Kollam has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

                This complaint has been filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  As per S 11(2) of the said Act a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.

1. the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain.
2.  or any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain

or provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or “ (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution.

c)  or  the cause of action wholly or in part arises.

The complainant has not specifically pleaded in the complaint regarding the fact that this forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under any of the above 3 clauses.  However during cross examining, the complainant deposed that he has handover the tour charge Rs.1,95,000 with 1^st opposite party at the Retired Priest’s Home near Kottiyam church at Kollam.  But further down he would admit that “A2 {]Im-c-ap-ff XpI ssI¸-äp-¶Xpw receipt ssI¸-äp-¶Xpw FXr-I-£n-bpsS Ernakulam Dff Hm^o-kn h¨mWv F¶p ]d-bp-¶p(Q)  AsX.(A).  In the light of the above admission coupled with non mentioning of the fact that a part of the cause of action has taken place within the territorial limit of this Forum either in the complaint or in the proof affidavit would probabalise the case of the opposite parties that no part of the cause of action has taken place within the territorial limit of this forum.  Hence the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kollam has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as contented by the opposite parties.  The point answered accordingly.

Point No.2 & 3

                In the light of the finding under point No.1 to the effect that this Forum/Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint we are not venturing to consider point No. 2 & 3.

Point No.4

                As this Forum/Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the complaint is returned to the complainant to be presented before proper Forum within two weeks from today.

                Office of this Forum is directed to return the complaint with necessary endorsement, evidence collected and other materials to the complaint to be present before proper Forum.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 2^nd  day of  November  2022.  

                     S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

                                                           STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                    Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1                        : Francy John

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1                     : Copy of the email issued by 2^nd opposite party to the complainant

Ext.A2                     : Receipt dated 03.05.2017 issued by opposite party to the complainant

Ext.A3                     : Tour Programme of the opposite party issued to the complainant

Ext.A4                     : Preparation notice issued by the opposite party

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-

DW1                       : Jose Liba

Documents marked for opposite party:-

Ext.D1                     : Certified true copy of the resolution

Ext.D2                     : Visa information by VFS Global

Ext.D3                     : Email dated 24.03.2017 issued by Qatar Airways