Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/37/2019

Make My Trip India Pvt.Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh. Kamaljit Singh Sandhu - Opp.Party(s)

Ashwani Talwar & Satpal Dhamija Adv.

31 Mar 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	37 of 2019
Date of Institution	22.02.2019
Date of Decision	31.03.2021

 

Make My Trip (India) Private Limited, DLF Building No.5, Tower B, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-2, Sector 25, Gurugram, Haryana -122002, India, through Authorized Signatory, EkankMehra, Assistant Manager (Legal), Make My Trip (India) Private Limited, Tower-A, 19^th Floor, Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, Gurugram-122002.                                                                            

              …..Appellant/Opposite Party

 

Versus

1. Sh.Kamaljit Singh Sandhu S/o Sh.Kartar Singh, R/o VPO RattaKhera(Punjab Singh Wala), Tehsil and District Ferozepur-142052.
2. Smt.Surinder Kaur wife of Sh.Kamaljit Singh Sandhu, R/o VPO RattaKhera(Punjab Singh Wala), Tehsil and District Ferozepur-142052.

                                  …..Respondents/Complainants         

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

               

Argued by:  Sh.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the appellant.

                None for the respondent.

 

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 05.12.2018, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.879 of 2017, filed by the complainant, with the following directions: -

“[a]  To refund the remaining amount of Rs.70,000/-  to the complainants.

[b]  To pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing immense mental agony and harassment due to deficient services and having indulged into unfair trade practice;

[c]   To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. 

This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay the awarded amount, as at sub-para [a] & [b] above, along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization, apart from paying the litigation expenses.”

2.        The facts, in brief, are that the complainants purchased a Holiday Travel Package for the European Continent and made a payment of Rs.2,77,179/- to the Opposite Party through the credit cards. It was stated that the Opposite Party assured them that they shall face no hiccups in securing a Schengen Visa, as the travel pack shall justify the concerned authorities about the purpose and conditions of the travel period. It was further stated that they have also submitted their documents at VFS Centre, Elante Mall, Chandigarh for obtaining Schengen Visa and paid Rs.12,744/- towards visa fees. It was further stated that the complainants received a letter dated 18.08.2017 whereby the visa of the complainants was rejected on the ground that the information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable.  It was further stated that complainants have suffered huge mental stress agony, embarrassment because the visa was rejected due to the shortcomings and laxity on the part of the Opposite Party.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party refunded Rs.2,70,179/- out of Rs.2,77,179/- and the remaining amount of Rs.70,000/- was retained illegally and arbitrarily.  It was further stated that the complainants got served a legal notice dated 13.10.2017 upon the Opposite Party, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.
3. The Opposite Partyfiled its reply and, admitted the factual matrix of the case that the complainants booked the online tour package to Europe through the website from the Opposite Party and before confirmation, an user agreement was entered between the complainants and the Opposite Party and thereafter, they provided confirmed air tickets, as well as hotels bookings to the complainants. It was stated that the visa application was moved and rejected by the concerned embassy and upon this the complainants requested for cancellation of the tour package.  It was further stated that as far as denial of visa is concerned, it is not under the domain of the Opposite Party.  It was further stated that on cancellation of the tour, the Opposite Party has refunded an amount of Rs.2,07,179/- to the complainants.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and theanswering Opposite Party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainants, they reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint.
5. The partiesled evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowedthe complaint, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10. It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed the services of the Opposite Party/appellant for booking Holiday Travel Package for the European Splendours 2017 (Group Holiday) Paris, Engelberg, Innsbruck, Padova, Milan for ten nights and eleven days, by paying a sum of Rs.2,77,179/- through credit cards. Besides this, we observed that the appellant had also charged a sum of Rs.12,744/- for getting the Schengen Visas for the respondents. It is also not disputed that the respondents submitted all the documents/information to the appellant, which are required for the processing/procurement of visa. However, the visa application of the respondents was rejected vide letter dated 18.08.2017 by the Embassy of France, on the ground, that the information submitted regarding justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable.The stand taken by the appellant is that issuance of visa is the prerogative of the Embassy and not that of appellant, is totally absurd. In that case, the appellant should haveinformed the respondents to procure visa from the concerned agency and only thereafter the respondent should accept the payment of Rs.2,77,179/- from the respondents. We are of the considered view that the application of the respondents for getting visa required was rejected by the Embassy, due to the negligence of the appellant who failed to furnish the requisite information to the concerned Embassy regarding the purpose and intended stay of the respondents. Thus, deficiency in service is writ large on the face of the appellant and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11. No other point, was urged, by the Counsels for the Parties.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
13. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

31.03.2021          

 

                                                               Sd/-

                                                     

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                        Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

                                                                        Sd/-

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

 

GP

 

                       

STATE COMMISSION

APPEAL No.37 of 2019

(Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kamaljit Singh Sandhu &Anr.)

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

 

Dated the 31^st day of March, 2021

 

Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 21 days (as per office report 19 days) has been filed. For the reasons explained in the application and finding sufficient cause, the delay aforesaid, is condoned.

                Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed, with no order as to cost and the order passed by the District Forum has been upheld.

 

Sd/-                  Sd/-                                 Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)	(JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)	(RAJESH K. ARYA)
MEMBER	PRESIDENT	MEMBER

 

 

 

 

Gp