Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/699/2016

Nitin Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOTC Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Mahajan

25 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/699/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	26/08/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	25/10/2017

 

 

 

 

 

[1]  Nitin Kumar son of Sh.Narendra Kumar, r/o H.No.124, Sector 9-B, Chandigarh.

 

[2]  Shashi Kumar wife of Sh.Nitin Kumar, r/o H.No.124, Sector 9-B, Chandigarh.

……… Complainants.

 

Versus

 

[1]  SOTC Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Kuoni Travel India Pvt. Ltd.), 8^th Floor, Tower-A, Urmi Estate, 95 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 40013, India.

 

[2]  SOTC Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Kuoni Travel India Pvt. Ltd.), SCO 147-148, Level 1^st Floor, Near Sindhi Sweets, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh – 160008, India.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Atul Mahajan, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Sh.Nitin Kumar & Anr. (hereinafter called the Complainants), have filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the SOTC Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. & Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that they had paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the Opposite Parties on 26.04.2016 for arranging a tour for them to Europe from July 19, 2016. It has been averred that the balance amount was to be paid later on as and when demanded by the Opposite Parties or on joining the tour programme. The Opposite Parties were to complete all the formalities of the aforesaid tour programme i.e. visa, air tickets and accommodation. All the relevant documents in respect of the tour were handed over by the Complainants to the Opposite Parties. The Complainants had also paid Rs.13,080/- to one VFS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. on 19.05.2016, at the instance of the Opposite Parties, for submission of visa applications from Belgium Embassy by the officials of Opposite Party No.2. Despite this, on 24.05.2016, the Complainant No.1 was informed by the Belgium Embassy that their visa applications were being returned as the same had been wrongly applied from Belgium and that their visa applications were not being processed. On 25.05.2016, the Complainants rushed to the Opposite Party No.2, who while confirming the developments took place, asked them to collect their returned visa applications and to re-submit the same to the office of VFS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. As advised, the Complainants further paid Rs.3420/- to the aforesaid VFS Global Services for re-submission of visa applications on 26.05.2016. Thereafter, the Complainants kept on tracking their visa applications, but vide letters dated 10.06.2016, they were informed by the Belgium Embassy that their request for grant of tourist visa was rejected. The Opposite Party No.2 when contacted, offered to make other holiday arrangements. However, when the Complainants resisted and requested them to re-apply for the same trip on different dates, the Opposite Parties refused to do so. It has been alleged that on 17.06.2016 to the utter surprise of the Complainants, the Opposite Party No.2 informed them that as a special case, in their case there would be cancellation charges to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per person + GST. Totally aghast by the same, the Complainants on 08.08.2016, got served a legal notice upon the Opposite Parties, inter alia, calling upon them to refund the upfront booking amount of Rs.2,00,000/- plus visa fee of Rs.13,080/- as also the visa fees of Rs.3420/- totaling Rs.2,16,480/- along with interest, but the same failed to bore the fruition. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainants have preferred the present Complaint.      

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that the Complainants had opted for a tour marketed as “European Splendors” which was to depart from India on the 19^th June, 2016 and the tour was for a duration of 10 days. The responsibility of the Opposite Parties was limited to provide basic assistance preparing the visa application. The decision to grant or refuse a visa application is at the sole and absolute discretion of the respective Embassy/Consultant of a Sovereign State over which the Opposite Parties had no control/ influence. The Complainants were at liberty to appeal against the said decision and the Opposite Parties have no role whatsoever in the same. It has been asserted that although the cancellation policy under the booking terms & conditions attracts 100% cancellation charges as the tour was cancelled five days prior to the departure, yet as a special case and to mitigate the disappointment of the Complainants, the Opposite Parties offered a lower slab of cancellation charges and also offered them to avail a tour to Hongkong, but the they refused to accept the offer. The receipt of legal notice dated 08.08.2016 has also been admitted. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainants also filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Parties and have also perused the record.

 

7.      The main grievance of the Complainants is that the Opposite Parties did not refund their money, received from them, towards the 10 days European Splendors Tour, for which they were not allowed to travel as the Visa was rejected by the Belgium Embassy. On meticulous perusal of Annexure C-1 (Pg.30), containing details of the 10 days European Splendors Cost Saver Tour, we find that the tour price includes cost of the Visas needed to participate in the tour. Further, we find that the Opposite Parties have made it mandatory to do this Visa through Kuoni-SOTC under the heading of ‘Visa Requirements’. In this backdrop, we are of the concerted view that the Visa requirements was required to be processed by the Opposite Parties and the cost of Visa fee was also included in the cost of tour. It is gauged from Annexure C-6 (Pg.41 to 44) that all the applications were drafted by the Opposite Parties and sent vide e-mail to the Complainants for their signatures. It is also undoubtedly understood by all the parties that if Visa is not granted by the Consulate/ Embassy, nobody can travel to the foreign land. In this case, the Opposite Parties have accepted the responsibility for making it mandatory to process the Visa through them only, hence they should also accept the burden of refunding the money charged by them, in case the visa is denied by the Consulates. Hence, refusal of the Opposite Parties to refund the booking amount to the Complainants, in the given circumstances, to our mind, amounts to deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice.

 

8.      In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To refund the booking amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by the Complainants for the tour package;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainants; 

 

[c]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

 

9.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25^th Oct., 2017                                               Sd/-           

 (SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                            Sd/-  

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”