PER:
Charanjit Singh, President.
1 The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.
2 The complainants have filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12, 12(1)(C) and 13 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainants applied for valid VISA for visit to Republic of Singapore to opposite party No. 2 through opposite party No. 1 by paying the required processing fees in the month of March, 2017 and the complainants have the same cause of action against the same parties and are filing the joint complaint with the permission of this commission the complainants are consumer as provided under the act are competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this commission. The complainants applied for the VISA for visit to the republic of Singapore to the opposite party No. 2 through opposite party No. 1 in first week of March with the assurance by the opposite Party No. 1 that they will get the VISA within 2-3 working days and booked the tickets of the complainant for their visit to Republic of Singapore for traveling on 16.3.2017 and charged Rs. 34,800/-. The complainant did not receive the Visa or any query from the opposite party No.2 and approached the opposite party No. 1 who sent them to opposite party No. 2 who refused to handover the VISA documents to the complainants and instead send them to opposite party No. 1 post 16.3.2017 and the complainants could not travel on the booked flights and their tickets go wasted. The said VISA was allowed from 15.3.2017 by opposite party No. 2 but was not handed over to the complainants and they could not travel on the booked flights. The complainants thereafter again got the Air tickets booked for the visit of Republic of Singapore on the said VISA documents for 23.3.2017 by paying Rs. 40,926/- and on arrival at the Singapore Airport the complainants were detained on the pretext they were not traveling on the valid VISA documents whereas the complainants were having all the required documents including return tickets and valid currency. The complainants were kept in custody by the immigration officials of opposite party No. 2 for two days at the Airport and was humiliated and treated in the most inhuman way and was time and again threatened of execution and no proper humanly behavior was shown to them and ultimately by the grace of the almighty God they were deported back on 25.3.2017 to Amritsar and the complainants went in to deep trauma and depression after getting such inhumanly treatment. The aforesaid acts of the opposite parties giving the gross inhumanity and negligent treatment to the complainants and were not allowed to visit Republic of Singapore inspite of having valid travel documents and is an act of deficiency in services, malpractice, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainants and loss of love and affection of the wife and mother for which opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 18 Lacs to the complainant. The complainant has prayed the following reliefs against the opposite parties.
(A) The opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of air tickets alongwith interest 12% from date of payment till realization.
(B) The opposite parties be directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 18 lacs to the complainant.
(C) The opposite parties be directed to pay the adequate cost of litigation.
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interalia pleadings that the complainant has got no cause of action against the opposite party No. 1, the purported complainant is not the consumer as provided under the act and cannot initiate any proceedings under the Act as such, the complaint merits dismissal on this score only. This commission has got no jurisdiction as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was pleaded that the complainant is not the consumer as provided under the act and opposite party No. 1 has facilitated the purported complainants in getting the VISA from opposite party No. 2 only and nothing to do with the present controversy and has no knowledge about what transpired between opposite party No. 2 and the purported complainants. The opposite party No. 1 only facilitated the complainants in getting the VISA from opposite party No. 2. There is no deficiency in services or any unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
4 Notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2, but the opposite party No. 2 did not appear despite service, therefore, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte.
5 To prove the case, Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1 alongwith documents i.e. copy of passport of Jatinderpal Singh Ex. C-2, copy of e- ticket Ex. C-3, copy of Visa Ex. C-4, copy of the conformation mail Jatinderpal Singh Ex. C-5, Copy of passport of Dharminder Singh Ex. C-6, boarding pass of Dharminder Singh Ex. C-7, copy of the immigration refusal of Jatinderpal Singh Ex. C-8, Copy of e-mail confirmation ticket Ex. C-9, copy of passport Gurpreet Singh Ex. C-10, copy of Visa of Gurpreet Singh Ex.C-11, copy of the boarding pass of Gupreet Singh Ex. C-12, copy of Visa of Dharminder Singh Ex. C-13, Copy of immigration refusal of Jatinder Pal Singh Ex. C-14, copy of the bus ticket Ex. C-15, copy of boarding pass of Jatinder Singh Ex. C-16 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party no. 1 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Suri Partner Ex. OP1/1 and closed the evidence.
6 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 1 and have gone through the record on the file.
7 According to complainants they applied for the VISA for visit to the republic of Singapore to the opposite party No. 2 through opposite party No. 1 in first week of March with the assurance by the opposite Party No. 1 that they will get the VISA within 2-3 working days and booked the tickets of the complainant for their visit to Republic of Singapore for traveling on 16.3.2017 and charged Rs. 34,800/-. The complainant did not receive the Visa or any query from the opposite party No.2 and approached the opposite party No. 1 who sent them to opposite party No. 2 who refused to handover the VISA documents to the complainants and instead send them to opposite party No. 1 post 16.3.2017 and the complainants could not travel on the booked flights and their tickets go wasted. The said VISA was allowed from 15.3.2017 by opposite party No. 2 but was not handed over to the complainants and they could not travel on the booked flights. The complainants thereafter again got the Air tickets booked for the visit of Republic of Singapore on the said VISA documents for 23.3.2017 by paying Rs. 40,926/- and on arrival at the Singapore Airport the complainants were detained on the pretext they were not traveling on the valid VISA documents whereas the complainants were having all the required documents including return tickets and valid currency. The complainants were kept in custody by the immigration officials of opposite party No. 2 for two days at the Airport and was humiliated and treated in the most inhuman way and was time and again threatened of execution and no proper humanly behavior was shown to them and ultimately by the grace of the almighty god they were deported back on 25.3.2017 to Amritsar and the complainants went in to deep trauma and depression after getting such inhumanly treatment. On the other hands, the opposite party No. 2 is proceeded against exparte.
8 In the present case the complainants, visited to Singapore on the visa papers and they have been detained on the pretext that they were not traveling on the valid VISA documents and they were deported back to India. The opposite party No. 2 has not appeared in this case and proceeded against exparte. To determine this point as to whether the complainants were having valid visa document or not at that time, detailed evidence, cross examination is required and intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case. As such , this District Commission cannot exercise its jurisdiction to decide the intricate questions of law and facts in a summary manner. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgment which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
9 In view of above discussion, the instant complaint is relegated to the Civil Court for deciding the matter in accordance with law. Copy of order will be supplied by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar to the parties as per rules. File be sent back to the District consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.
Announced in Open Commission
11.08.2022
