A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :AT HYDERABAD
FA 1591/2007 against CC No. 531/2007 on the file of the District Forum III, Hyderabad
Between :
M/s. Indo Saudi Services ( Travels ) Private Limited
Rep. by its authorized signatory Mr Mohd Iftekhar Ahmed
S/o Abdul Zahoorm having its office at
Ground floor, Krishna Residency, Hill Fort Road,
Adarshnagar, Hyderabad .. Appellant/opposite party
And
Thallapalli Ravinder
S/o T. Ramanadham, aged ; major, R/o H. No. 2-11
Engineers Enclave, Near HUDA, Chandanagar,
Ranga Reddy District .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. A. Alavender Goud
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. B. Srikanth
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao .. Hon’ble President,
Sri Syed Abdullah … Hon’ble Member
And
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao… Hon’ble Member
Wednesday, the Seventh Day of July, Two Thousand Ten
Oral Order : ( As per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member )
*******
The appellant is the opposite party in CC No. 531/2007 before the District Forum III, Hyderabad against whom an order dated 19th September, 2007 was passed directing payment of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the respondent/complainant with costs of Rs.2000/- on the ground of deficiency in service and the order is assailed as erroneous on question of fact and law.
The facts of the case in brief are that he is an Engineer working in Saudi Arabia since 06.10.1995 till 2007. He used to visit twice a year to look after his family members. The complainant visited India from Saudi Arabia in the month of February, 2007 and his employer issued exit and re-entry Visa from 24.01.2007 to 12.05.2007. The complainant approached the opposite party for booking ticket to Saudi Arabia. On the date of booking the ticket, he was unwell. So he enquired the opposite aprty about getting extension of Visa after its lapse. The opposite party gave a proforma and connected papers to be filled in to apply for Visa extension and the complainant furnished all the required papers. The complainant applied to his employer seeking Visa extension who sent the same. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1000/- to the opposite party for processing Visa extension papers. Visa extension was given by the concerned Consulate on 15.05.2007 by extending it up ;to 21.5.2007. As the date of re-entry was fast approaching, the complainant made several calls to the opposite party to know the position and visited its office. The persons in the office did not give any response. The concerned official was out of station on 21.05.2007. The opposite party handed over his pass port along with Visa extension on 22.05.2007 of which time Visa extension had expired. The opposite party was quite aware of it and also aware about the period of Visa extension which may be done in three days or one week depending on the period of Residence Visa of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Residence Visa was valid up to 24.05.2007. Because of the negligence attitude of the opposite party,. the complainant lost his job and he could not join duty to proceed to Saudi Arabia on the last date of deadline of re-entry given in the Visa. The opposite party has exploited the complainant and thereby he suffered mental trauma. The complainant was drawing 43,000 Riyals per month and he had to get service benefits of Rs.10 lakhs which he lost it. The family members are depending on the earnings of the complainant. On account of loss sustained by him, the opposite parties are liable to indemnify the loss to a tune of Rs.15 lakhs which may be granted in his favour.
The opposite party in its version has put the complainant to strict proof of the allegations made against the opposite party. it is stated that the opposite party undertakes only Travels services and it will not undertake any employment visa or re-entry extension visa which is also admitted by the complainant in his pleadings. The complainant failed to mention the time and date of approaching of the opposite party. For getting re-entry Visa extension, sympathizing with the complainant , the opposite party had obliged to process the extension of Visa from the concerned Consulate which is situate at Bombay. The opposite party had asked the complainant to furnish details about the date of his re-entry. The complainant did not give any reply when it was asked for . The opposite party had received courier shipment of the complainant’s pass port and Visa endorsement on 21.05.2007 and on the next day, i.e., on 22.05.2007 the complainant had approached and the same was handed over to him. The delay in receipt of the courier shipment is also explained. The complainant was satisfied that there was no fault on the part of the opposite party and that the delay was by DTDC courier. Subsequently there was no contact with the complainant and the opposite party had no information till the notice was received from the District Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that the opposite party had obliged to process the obligation on sympathetic grounds. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
During enquiry, the complainant had filed Ex. A-1 to A-8 but the evidence affidavit was not at all filed. The opposite party filed evidence affidavit and marked documents Ex. B-1 to B-3.
Perusal of day to day docket orders from 07.08.2007 up to 19.09.2007 shows that the complainant was absent right from 2nd date of hearing , i.e., 20.08.2007 onwards and again on 27.08.2007 and 12.09.2007. So on the basis of the material evidence available on record, the District Forum passed the order on merits holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- along with costs of Rs.2000/- on the ground that the opposite party failed to process the papers and pass port within time before expiry of the extended time of Visa which had caused undue hardship.
The appellant in its appeal grounds has raised the contention that the District Forum believed the allegations of the complainant without appreciating the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party and that the courier shipment had actually delivered on 21.05.2007 and it was handed over on the next day itself and it is the responsibility of the complainant to know when he had to plan for re-entry and make necessary arrangements before leaving for Saudi Arabia and he cannot find fault with the opposite party but on sympathetic grounds wanted to help him to get Visa extension processed. Also contended that there is an admission on the part of the complainant that the opposite party undertakes the services only for booking tickets and not at all concerned with the Visa processing. It is evident that the complainant had approached the opposite party company on 11.05.2007, a day prior to lapsing of the Visa on 12.05.2007. It is also contended that when the opposite parties sought for explanation from the courier service for the delay of six days during the transit of the parcel from Mumbai to Hyderabad who in turn informed that due to technical problems of aircraft the shipment was delayed for two days and that on 18.05.2007 and 19.05.2007 there was heavy security at airport because of Bomb blast in Hyderabad and cargo clearance got delayed. On the next day, i.e., 20.05.2007 was Sunday, the courier office was closed and in spite of sufficient evidence to show that the opposite party is not negligent, the District Forum erroneously fastened the liability.
Point for consideration is, whether the impugned order awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with costs of Rs.2000/- is justified and that the impugned order suffers from any factual and legal infirmity ?
We have perused the record and the documents filed by both sides. There is a categorical admission in the complaint itself that the complainant due to his ill health could not return back to Saudi Arabia and join his duty before 12.05.2007 from which it is very clear that re-entry Visa expired by 12.05.2007. Ex. A-8 ticket was purchased by him for his journey on 12.05.2007 from Mumbai to Riyad. He must have cancelled the ticket also but there is no whisper about it. From his own admission, it is very clear that on the date of applying for extension or entrusting the job to the opposite party on 11.05.2007 re-entry Visa would be expiring by 12.05.2007. The complainants in its pleadings stated that he sent requisition to employer for issuing Visa extension and in turn the employer sent the required papers. There is no evidence on record to show that when the complainant had sent requisition to his employer in Saudi Arabia and when he had received the same. It is the specific case of the complainant that he had approached the opposite party on 11.05.2007 to process the Visa extension. He has not given the details as to when he applied to sent requisition to his employer and when he received the extension Visa. It is an admitted fact that the Consulate of Saudi Arabia is having its office at Mumbai where the Visa extension application in proper proforma along with the employer’s letter is to be enclosed for obtaining necessary endorsement on the pass port giving extension. As admitted by the complainant Visa endorsement was made on 15.05.2007 itself on the efforts made by the opposite party at Mumbai. Ex.A-7 is the receipt issued by the opposite party towards charges collected for Visa extension. Issuance of Visa or extension of Visa is the discretion of the concerned Consulate who after going through the relevant papers would endorse on the pass port which enables the person to proceed to visit the foreign country before the expiry of the Visa. Each Consulate has its own rules and regulations in giving Visa or extending it. The practice of the Consulate of Saudi Arabia is that the application is to be processed or submitted within three days after expiry of the Visa.
From the evidence on record, it is evident that the opposite party had submitted application for extension of Visa on 12.05.2007 and within three days an endorsement was made by the concerned Consulate on the pass port and pursuant there to on 16.05.2007 it was entrusted to shipment courier DTDC at Mumbai for sending it to the opposite parties’ office at Hyderabad. The Courier service had charged prescribed charges and sent courier through Airmail so that it may reach without loss of time. Usually couriers are delivered within 24 hours to 48 hours but as per Ex. B-1 letter given by the DTDC couriers it had explained the delay in non-delivery of the courier to the opposite parties’ office though the said courier was received at the other end on 15.05.2007 at Mumbai. In Ex. B-1 it is stated that on 16.05.2007 shipment was un-loaded because of technical problem of Aircraft, the shipment had reached Hyderabad on 17.05.2007 in late hours but the same could not be delivered on 18th and 19th March because of Bomb blast incident at Hyderabad and not allowed for security reasons and the next date, i.e., 20.05.2007 happened to be a Sunday, so it was delivered on 21.05.2007. The complainant could not prove that he has been making enquiries either by contacting the opposite parties’ office at Mumbai or to know about the position of Visa extension and its dispatch. In Ex. A-7 receipt there is no undertaking that the Visa extension to be handed over before expiry of Visa. There was no such undertaking to attribute that there was any breach of contract on the part of the opposite party. Evidence on record available is only an assertion and denial. But the seriatum of events disclose that as per the undertaking of the opposite party, the papers were sent to Mumbai on 12.05.2007 itself and within three days Visa extension endorsement was obtained which was mailed through courier on 15.05.2007 itself and the same had reached Hyderabad on 17.05.2007 itself but the same could not be allowed to be carried from the Airport to the addressee on account of Bomb Blast incident and security reasons on 18th, 19th. . As 20th May, 2007 happened to be a holiday it was delivered on 21.05.2007. The opposite party cannot be blamed or that he can be found fault for the delay in delivery of the courier to his address. Any prudent person would proceed to Mumbai and from there itself he would collect the Visa extension and passport to proceed on his journey. When the time is very very short it is improper to expect getting it processed within a day or two and to be delivered to the complainant. The complainant on account of his own illness had postponed his visit. It is not known for what reason the employer had terminated his service for which the opposite party cannot be blamed for seeking compensation for him. After all, charges paid was Rs.1000/- and compensation claimed is at Rs. 15 lakhs alleging that he lost his job and that his service benefits to a tune of Rs. 10 lakhs could not be realized from his employer. There is no an iota of evidence on record to accept the complainant’s version. As a matter of fact, the opposite party had not fixed any time for getting the visa processed to attribute him with any deficiency in service. There is a mistake of fact in between the parties in not fixing the time. In Ex. A-7 no details are noted fixing time. There is no inadequacy or short coming in rendering service undertaken by the opposite party so as to fasten him with any liability. The complainant failed to substantiate his case for the entitlement of compensation.
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 19th September, 2007 and consequently complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT
Sd/-MEMBER
Sd/- MEMBER
DATED : 07.07.2010.
