IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 22nd day of August, 2019.
Filed on 17-08-2017
Present
Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)
2. Smt. Sholy P.R, B.A.L,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.220/2017
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.Varghese George Sri.Shameer
Grace Villa (Valuparambil) Proprietor
Kallisseri P.O. Akbar Travels Online.com
Chengannur Karimbinkalayil Tower
Alappuzha - 689124 Engineering College Junction
M.C.Road, Chengannur -689121
(By Adv. Jayan C.Das)
O R D E R
SMT.SHOLY P.R (MEMBER)
The complainant's son Renny varghese applied for a visiting visa (90 days convertible) to UAE through opposite party by paying Rs.19,000/- on 20.02.2017 and while applying the opposite party told that the visa will be ready within 7 to 10 days and the complainant's son (Applicant) frequently contacted to the opposite party. The applicant also submitted his Degree certified and copy of passport of his father and that of the complainant as demanded by the opposite party. The application for visa was submitted for the purpose of going to U.A.E for attending interview. After several request the opposite party gave a copy of application form with a statement "security rejected" written on it and also told that they cannot re-imherse the cash remitted along with the application. The opposite party did not disclose those matters at the time of receiving the visa application. After rejecting the application the opposite party told that they have no responsibility and the applicant would suffer the consequences of rejection of visa application. There after the applicant talked with Mr.Shameer, the proprietor at their office at Changanasseri about the cancellation of the said visa application. After I week the opposite party has informed that the application has been cancelled. Then the applicant applied for new visa and got it and he went to UAE on 29.04.2017. But the applicant had to pay again for the new visa and during the period of one month the complainant and family were faced so many mental and physical problems and the applicant lost some chances to attend the interviews in UAE. The cause for rejecting the visa application was not been informed, as well as the money was also not returned. Hence this complaint.
2. In response to the notice the opposite party entered appearance and resisted the complaint by filing a detailed written version raising the following contentions.
3. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The application for convertible visa for the complainant's son was received by the opposite party. The complainant has never told that his son has passed B.E engineering and the visa is for attending an interview in UAE. The UAE emigration section rejected the application of the complainant's son, that is the reason why the visa processing was not completed. The complainant was working in Abu Dhabi and at the same time his son visited there using visiting visa. At the time of his return from Abu Dhabi the exit seal was recorded in the passport, but in the computer system it was not recorded. As a result it was shown in the emigration Department's system that he has overstayed. That is the reason for the rejection of the visa application. All these matters were informed to the complainant and also told that the money given to the emigration department would not be given back, Then the complainant requested the opposite party to rectify the problems, but it cannot be done by the opposite party as those services are not available with the opposite party. The opposite party has done the visa processing through TRAVEL PARTNER holidays, sky tower, near Oman Airways, Bank Road Mavoor Road Jn, Calicut-1. They have proceeded the further formalities through DNATA WORLD TRAVEL who informed the rejection of visa application to the opposite party. Therefore the DNATA WORLD TRAVEL is also a necessary party in this complaint and they must be included in this complaint for just and proper adjudication of the matter. The complainant has received these information from the opposite party and consulted another agency and they solved all the problems regarding the overstay in the UAE Emigration system and the complainant's son has got a visa. As a result of the circumstances stated above the complainant has not been suffering any kind of financial, physical or mental hardships and loss.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-
1. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
3. Reliefs and costs.
5. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 series to Ext.A4. Opposite party was examined as DW1, No documents produced on the side of the opposite party.
Point No.1
One of the contentions of the opposite party is that the visa processing was done by DNATA WORLD TRAVEL and therefore they must be included as a necessary party in the complaint and without the above agency, in the party, array the complaint is not maintainable. The complainants son submitted the visa application and its processing charge Rs.19,000/- to the opposite party and the applicant has no connection with the said agency. If the opposite party has any business connection with the above said agency it should have been informed to the complainant at the time of receiving the application. As the consumer service provider relationship between the complainant and opposite party is admitted there is no need to implead the agency pointed out by the opposite party. We find no merit in the above contention. Point answered accordingly.
Point No.2
It is an admitted fact that the opposite party received a visa application from the complainant's son along with its processing charges.Rs.19000/-. On perusal of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 & A2 documents it is clear that the opposite party delayed the visa proceedings and giving information of the rejection of visa application to the applicant and hence the complainant has sustained mental agony apart from financial loss. The main contention of the opposite party is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In view of the materials available on record it is clear that the visa application made by the son of the complainant was rejected by the issuing Authority. The only contention of the opposite party is that the reason for rejecting the visa application of complainant's son is his overstay while he visited UAE earlier. But the complainant’s son has got new visa and he went to UAE. In view of the material available on record it is clear that the defect regarding overstay is to be cured by the travel agency as a service provider. But the opposite party has not taken any steps to cure the defects. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is entitled to return the amount which he paid to the opposite party as visa processing charge.
Point No.3
In the result the complaint stands disposed off directing the opposite party to pay Rs.19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand only) to the complainant. The prayer to grant compensation and costs stands dismissed. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover Rs.19000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the opposite party and his assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 22th day of August, 2019.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy P.R (Member)
Sd/-Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Varghese George (Witness)
Ext.A1 Series - Copy of E-mail dtd 27.03.2017, 01.08.2017, 01.08.2017
Ext.A2 - Visa application form
Ext.A3 - Copy of Visa application form
Ext.A4 - eVisa
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
DW1 - Renjeev Thomas (Witness)
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
