IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 28th day of January, 2016
Filed on 06.01.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.3/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. K.G. Sudhakara Panicker 1. Sarathy Air Travels
Kadavisseri Veedu College Junction
Iramathoor, Mannar – 689 622 Kallumala, Mavelikara
Alappuzha (By Adv. R. Ullas)
2. Air Arabia, Kamala Towers
Ganapathy Temple Road
Vazhuthakkad
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014 (By Adv. C. Muraleedharan)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant and his wife applied for 2 Visas and Air tickets through Air Arabia the second opposite party for going to Sharja. The Air Arabia, Trivandrum sent two visiting Visas and tickets sent to the complainant through the first opposite party the Sarathi Travel Agency. On noticing an error in the passport number entered in the Visa of the complainant’s wife, the complainant requested the opposite parties to issue a new Visa by correcting the same. The second opposite party informed the complainant that their representative will bring the new Visa on August 14th at Trivandrum Airport. On the basis of such assurance given by the second opposite party the complainant and his wife reached at Trivandrum Airport on 14th August. But the representatives of the second opposite party told the complainant that the new Visa was not with them and they compelled the complainant to travel with the invalid Visa that they already given. But the complainant and his wife were not willing to travel with the invalid Visa. So they returned to their house. The act on the part of the opposite parties caused much inconveniences, mental pain and financial loss to the complainant. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
On noticing the error on the Visa, the first opposite party informed the second opposite party to correct the same. The second opposite party is entitled to correct the Visa. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
3. The version of the second opposite party is as follows:-
The relevant ticket and Visa was not done through the second opposite party. If at all there was any typing error in the Visa it is not due to the mistake of the second opposite party. The complainant is arrayed the second opposite party unnecessarily only because the proposed travel was in the airline of the second opposite party. The complainant had never entrusted or availed the service of the second opposite party for arranging the Visa. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A7. Ext.A1 is the copy of tourist Visa issued in favour of the complainant’s wife, Ext. A2 is the copy of the Air ticket, Ext.A3 is the copy the correct Visa, Ext.A4 is the copy of the Passport of complainant’s wife, Ext.A5 is the copy of the Trip sheet, Ext.A6 series are the detailed invoices dated 11.8.2014 and Ext.A7 is the invoice dated 29.6.2014 issued by the first opposite party. Ext.A5 and Ext.A6 series marked subject to objection. The second opposite party was examined as RW1. From the part of the first opposite party 3 documents produced which marked as Exts.B1 to B3 and those were opposed by the second opposite party.
3. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
4. The first opposite party admitted that complainant had booked 2 Visas and Air tickets for travelling to Sharja on 14th August through Air Arabia flight. It is also an admitted fact by the first opposite party that an error happened in printing the Passport No. in the Visa of the complainant’s wife. According to the complainant even though they informed the error to the first opposite party, the first and second opposite parties failed to rectify the error. The contention of the first opposite party is that they have informed the matter to the second opposite party and it is the duty of the second opposite party to correct the said error. The contention of the second opposite party is that they have no contacts with the complainant and they are not entitled to correct the error on the Passport No. in the Visa. It is an admitted fact that complainant had entrusted the documents to the first opposite party for getting Visa and Air ticket. While cross examining the second opposite party to the question put by the first opposite party, “Air Arabia UAE visiting Visa- arrange ? (Q) He answered that, “ ”. He also stated that they have not issued Visa to the complainant, but issued tickets to the complainant and his wife. As per the decision reported in 2013(2) CPR 735 Hon’ble National Commission stated that “Travel document must be verified by airline before issuance of the ticket.” In the instant case, the second opposite party deposed before the Forum that the tickets were issued by them. Hence it is the bounden duty of the second opposite party to verify the documents before issuing tickets. Had they verified the document they chould have find the error occurred in the Visa of the complainant’s wife. The failure on the part of the second opposite party in verifying the document before issuing tickets amounts deficiency in service. The second opposite party has no case that the first opposite party has not entrusted the document of the complainant with them. Ext.B1 the copy of email dated 25.7.2014 shows that the Visa was sent by the second opposite party to the first opposite party. So it is clear that the Visa copy was received by the first opposite party on 25.7.2014. It is admitted by the first opposite party that the complainant had applied for the Visas and Air tickets through them. Had the first opposite party noticed the error on the Visa they received on 25.7.2014, they could rectify the defect. According to the complainant they noticed the error only on one week prior to the date of travel, when they approached the first opposite party for collecting the Visa. It is the duty of the first opposite party to issue the ticket and Visa promptly to the complainant. The failure on the part of the first opposite party to do so also amounts to deficiency in service. From the forgoing discussions, we are of the opinion that the first and second opposite parties committed deficiency in service and they have to pay compensation for the mental agony and financial loss thereby caused to the complainant. Ext.A7 is the invoice dated 29.6.2014 issued by the first opposite party. It shows that complainant paid Rs.46,500/- towards expenses for ticket and Rs.12,000/- towards the expense for two visiting Visas. Since the complainant received the new Visa of his wife on September, he demands only Rs.52,000/- after deducting the Visa charge of Rs.6000/-. Ext.A5 shows that the complainant had spent Rs.3200/- towards taxi charge. Hence we are of opinion that the opposite parties are liable to refund the ticket and Visa charges to the complainant and also liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The second opposite party is directed to refund the entire amount Rs.52,000/- (Rupees fifty two thousand only) towards Visa charge and ticket charge with 12% interest from 29.6.2014 till realization. On account of the travelling expense, inconvenience, mental agony suffered by the complainants, opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each and a cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each to the complainants. The order shall be complied by the opposite parties 1 and 2 within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of January, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.G. Sudhakara Panicker (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of tourist Visa issued in favour of the complainant’s wife
Ext.A2 - Copy of the Air ticket
Ext.A3 - Copy the correct Visa
Ext.A4 - Copy of the Passport of complainant’s wife
Ext.A5 - Copy of the Trip sheet
Ext.A6 series - Detailed invoices dated 11.8.2014
Ext.A7 - Invoice dated 29.6.2014 issued by the first opposite party
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - P.R. Anilkumar (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Email dated 25.7.2014
Ext.B2 - Email dated 19.11.2015
Ext.B3 - Email dated 25.7.2014 (Subject to objection)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
