Haryana

Karnal

CC/88/2017

Mamta Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sunshine Travel Agency - Opp.Party(s)

Darshan Goel

19 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.88 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt.02.03.2017

                                                         Date of decision:19.07.2018

 

Mamta Goyal daughter of Shri Sumer Chand Goyal c/o 1106/14, Gurgaon resident of 828, Sector 14, Gurgaon (Hr.) 9582186192.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

Sunshine Travel Agency, 117-118 1^st floor Mughal Canal, Karnal. Travel Agent: Jagjeet Singh. 93550-87000.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

               

 

 Present  Shri Darshan Singh Advocate for complainant.

                 Shri Rohit Gupta Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER

 

                   (Jagmal Singh, President)

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant applied for Visitor Visa to Austrialia in the month of August, 2016 through a travel agency named “Sunshine Travels” at Karnal. OP submitted her file to Australian Embassy for which complainant deposited Rs.25000/- to them online bank transfer. Complainant enquired about his visa status from the OP but OP did not replied properly. OP denied to give her visa application tracing number. In February, 2017 (after five months) OP sent a letter which was sent by Australian Embassy on 22.12.2016 to the agent asked for few more documents for more clarification towards her application and in which they gave time of 28 days and within this duration, complainant could submit the required documents else the embassy but embassy refused her visa, the travel agency never intimated about their letter. Complainant asked the OP so many times about her visa and then agent sent their letter after over 2 months. The due date to submit the documents was passed because of negligence of the agent. The OP ignored the important letter from embassy completely. Also they never share any refusal letter with the complainant. Then complainant requested the OP to refund the amount of Rs.25000/- because due to his fault the process of the visa not completed but OP refused to pay the same. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; territorial jurisdiction; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and cause of action and concealment of true and material facts from this Forum. The  true facts are that complainant is resident of Hospital Area, near Bawa Hospital, Nilokheri District Karnal and employed at Gurgaon was the customer of the OP and earlier also engaged the services of the OP for tourist visa and tour for the countries Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand. The complainant had approached the OP for the visa file for Australia in the month of August 2016 and submitted copy of documents i.e. bank statement, job letter, salary slip etc. with application as required for visa file for Australia and further asked the OP to process her visa file for Australia through Flag Travels Delhi only. The OP demanded a sum of Rs.33,400/- for processing the visa file and Australian High Commission fees of the complainant and the complainant transferred a sum of Rs.25,000/- in the account of OP with the assurance that the complainant will transfer or paid the balance amount within a week. On the assurance of complainant being old customer the OP processed the visa file. A sum of Rs.8400/- was  deposited with Australian High Commission, New Delhi i.e. Embassy of Australia at New Delhi on account of visa apply fees by Flag Travels, Delhi. The OP received a copy of letter dated 22.12.2016 issued by Australian Embassy from Flag Travel in which it has been stated that as there is evidence suggesting that you have provided, or caused to be provided, a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to this visa application, you may fail to satisfy PLC 4010(1), with the result that this application may be refused. Meaning thereby the complainant has submitted false, bogus and misleading documents in order to get Australia Visa. The complainant visited the office of OP in the first week of January, 2017 and admitted her guild that she was not employed with C2C Technosoft as a HR Manager at the time of lodgment of the application and stated that she is not interest to pursue her visa application for Australia due to reasons as mentioned in the letter 22.12.2016 and further stated that she had already received an intimation in this regard from Flag Travels, Delhi and the copy of letter dated 22.12.2016 has already been handed over by Flag Travels, Delhi to the complainant. It is further stated that OP received a call from the complainant in February 2017 for providing the copy of letter dated 22.12.2016 through mail with the plea that the said letter has already been misplaced from the complainant and she required the same for some purpose, on which the OP sent a mail in this regard to the complainant in good faith. The OP has asked the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs.8400/- on which the complainant filed the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on 5.12.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Jagjeet Singh EX.RW1/A and closed his evidence on 5.6.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The learned counsel for complainant reiterated all the pointed mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant applied a visitor visa for Australia in the month of August 2016 through OP and deposited Rs.25,000/- with the OP by online transfer. He further argued that the complainant followed up for his visa status but the OP did not replied properly. The OP denied to give her visa application tracing number. He further argued that in February, 2017 the OP sent a letter which was sent by Australian Embassy on 22 September, 2016 to the agent asked for submitting the documents for which they gave time of 28 days duration. It is further argued that OP has not intimated about the said letter and the complainant could not submit the required documents. The OP sent the said letter after two months. It is further argued that the complainant asked the OP for refund of the amount of Rs.25000/- because it was the fault of the OP for not processing the visa and the OP has refused to pay the same. So the OP is deficient.

7.             The learned counsel for the OP argued that the complainant has earlier also engaged the services of the OP for tourist visa for tour of Singapur, Malaysia and Thailand. It is further argued that the complainant  approached the OP in August, 2016 for the visa file for Australia and submitted copies of documents i.e. bank statement, job letter, salary slip etc. with application and asked the OP to process her visa file through Flag Travels Delhi only. It is further argued that the OP demanded a sum of Rs.33,400/- from the complainant for processing the visa file and the complainant transferred a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The balance amount of Rs.8400/- was to be paid by the complainant within a week. A sum of Rs.8400/- was deposited with Australian High Commission New Delhi. It is further argued that the OP received a letter dated 22.12.2016 issued by Australian High Commission from flag travelers. From the letter dated 22.12.2016 it has become clear that the complainant has submitted false, bogus and misleading documents in order to get Australia Visa. It is further argued that the complainant came to the office of OP in January, 2017 and admitted about the receipt of the said letter. It is further argued that in February, 2017 the complainant sent an email for the copy of the said letter dated 22.12.2016 with the plea that the same has been misplaced form her and the OP has sent the same. It is further argued that the said letter dated 22.12.2016 was addressed by the Australian Embassy to the complainant directly at her address, therefore, the complainant cannot said that we have not supplied the copy of the same to her. It is further argued that when the OP demanded the balance amount of Rs.8400/-, the complainant instead of paying the same filed the present complaint.

8.             From the submissions of the parties, the main dispute is between the parties is that whether there was any delay in supplying the copy of letter dated 22.12.2016 to the complainant on the part of the OP?

9.             The letter in dispute dated 22.12.2016 has been placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-9. On perusal of this letter it is clear that the same has been addressed at the address of the complainant by the department of Australian Embassy. When the letter in question was sent to the complainant directly, then how the complainant can say that the same was not supplied to her by the OP. From the letter Ex.C9 it is also clear that the copy of the same has not been addressed to the agent. Therefore, the plea of the complainant that the OP has not sent the letter dated 22.12.2016 in time to the complainant has not force. From this letter Ex.C9 it is clear that the complainant has claimed in his application that she was employed with C2C Technosoft as HR Manager at the lodgment of the application and the department (i.e. Australian Embassy) has conducted verification and found her claim fraudulent. From this fact it is clear that the complainant herself has written wrong facts about her employment in the application form. As already stated above, the said application was addressed to the complainant so it was for the complainant herself either to contact the OP or to contact Australian Embassy directly. But as per her own evidence i.e. email Ex.C5, the complainant has contacted the OP on 23 January, vide which she asked the OP for sending refusal letter which means that she had the knowledge about the refusal letter dated 22.12.2016 and these facts indicate that the said letter had been received by her. The documents produced by the complainant herself shows that the letter dated 22.12.2016 was addressed to her and she had knowledge about the refusal of his visa, therefore, the complainant cannot blame the OP for causing the delay in sending the letter to her.  The contention of complainant that letter dated 22.12.2016 was supplied by OP late has no force because the same was supplied by the OP on the request of complainant. The complainant has not produced any such evidence vide which it can be said that there was any deficiency on the part of the OP. It is pertinent to mention here that it is proved on the file that the OP had processed the visa file of the complainant and the same was declined due wrong information supplied by the complainant, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any amount from the OP.

10.            In view of above discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 19.07.2018

                                                                       

                                                                         President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                        Anil Sharma                   Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                          Member