CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 16^th  day of February, 2017

PRESENT  : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT                           Date of filing: 11/09/2015

                  : SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER

                  : SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER

CC/132/2015

  Ramesh,

  S/o.Tharoor Vishwanathan Nair (L),

  1/28, Valsalyam, A.R.Nair Colony,

  Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad.

  (By Adv.K.N.Sreelatha)                                  :   Complainant

                                                        Vs

1. The Manager,

      Akber Travels of India Pvt Ltd.,                     

      Sulthanpet, Palakkad.  

     (By Adv.C.Madhavankutty)

2. Consulate General of Belgium,

C, 53 7^th Floor,TCG Financial Centre,                  :     Opposite parties

G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Mumbai 400098.                                                  

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma K.P.Member

The complainant had booked tickets for himself and his wife Valsala Ramesh to travel to Brussels via Dubai on Emirates flight to visit their son for a holiday and an amount of Rs.67,630/- was spent by the complainant for two way ticket of him and his wife. In order to obtain a Schengen visa the complainant and his wife approached opposite party on 20/04/2015 and handed over the copy of the e-tickets, original passports,  invitation letter, photos, and all relevant documents as required by the first opposite party. The air tickets handed over to the complainant will show that the travel date of the complainant and his wife as 11/05/2015. On the same day the complainant had paid to the opposite party Rs.19,000/- for the visa and travel insurance charges and the first opposite party had issued a receipt for the same. The visa and pass port was received by the complainant only on 04/05/2015 by courier and after receiving the same the complainant directly approached the first opposite party to show the visa. On 11/05/2015 complainant and his wife reported to the Emirates counter at Cochin Airport and their luggages were checked in and boarding pass for both was issued. Thereafter complainant and his wife proceeded for emigration clearance. The emigration officer in charge noticed that, the visa issued to the complainant was valid only from 12/05/2015 and the visa issued to his wife is valid from 11/05/2015. It was informed by emigration officer that the complainant cannot travel to Brussels since he had visa only on 12/05/2015 and the flight which they were travelling will reach Brussels on 1.15 PM. On 11/05/2015 he will be deported if ever he reaches early than the visa date.  The fact was put to the notice of Emirates authority. They also informed that the complainant cannot travel on 11/05/2015 and only his wife can travel. The complainant’s wife was unwilling and afraid to travel alone and was not used it as well. By the time of luggage of the complainant was already loaded and then it had to be unloaded and was given back to the complainant and they had returned back to home. The complainant and his wife was completely shattered and also collapsed and has underwent severe mental trauma, as they could not reach near their only son. All their dreams got shattered and had suffered damages and mentally agony. Complainant is also a heart patient and this bad news has caused ill health to the complainant. On the next day opposite party had admitted that it was a mistake of first opposite party’s staff who had filled up the online application for Visa and offered the complainant a new ticket which was worth Rs.1,44,000/- but demanded the complainant to pay Rs.1,20,000/- out of it, which was not acceptable to the complainant, since it was totally unfair settlement and the complainant again had to spent a huge sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. Opposite party had promised to the complainant to settle the issue and sought for a couple of days time. The complainant requested cancellation of the tickets with Emirates air line since they could not travel but out of Rs.67,630/- only, Rs.24,826/ was refunded by Emirates. So the complainant incurred a loss of Rs.42,810/- over and above the mental agony and damages suffered. The complainant alleges that the above acts on the part of the opposite party amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and gross negligence and he is liable to compensate for the same. On 22/5/2015, the complainant had sent a advocate notice to the opposite party in which he required the opposite party to pay Rs.42,810/- towards the loss incurred by cancellation of tickets and Rs.19,000/- towards the visa and insurance charges to be paid along with 12% from 20/04/2015. Complainant also required Rs.2 lakhs as compensation to the complainant and his wife for damages and mental agony suffered by them for losing a vacation with their son and also to issue two way tickets from Cochin to Brussels until November for him and his wife alongwith Rs.5,000/- as notice charges. After receipt of the notice opposite party had sent a reply in which they denied almost all the allegations and claims. Hence the complainant had approached before this Forum seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.42,810/- towards the loss incurred by cancellation of tickets and also to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.19,000/- towards visa and insurance charges paid alongwith 12% interest from 20/04/2015 and also to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for the mental agony suffered, and also to direct the opposite party to issue two way tickets from Cochin to Brussels for the complainant and his wife.

Complaint was admitted and notice was issued for the opposite parties for appearance. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying all the allegations in the complaint. They admits that the complainant had approached for obtaining a schengen visa on 20/4/2015. The opposite party submits that the application were furnished by the complainant himself for both of them. After the completion of filling the relevant forms, complainant called up his wife from their residence of Kollengode to the opposite party’s office to get her signature. The visa and passport was received by the complainant by courier directly from the Consulate to the residential address of the complainant. The complainant informed the opposite party about the acknowledgement of the travel document from the Consulate on the same day of his receipt over phone. The complainant had not come to the opposite party’s office after receiving the visa from the Consulate. The opposite party also denied the allegation that it was a mistake of this opposite party staff and also submits that there is no provision at all for the submissions of application through online for “Belgium Visa”. The applications were filled by the complainant only. The opposite party has not filled the application. Hence there is no chance that the opposite party admitting that it was mistake on the part of opposite party staff. The further allegation that the opposite party offered a new ticket which was worth Rs.1,44,000/- was also denied by the opposite party. The complainant did not check thoroughly or verify his travel documents, received from the Consulate. This opposite party is not responsible for the same. Complainant is well educated and highly qualified and he is a man having sufficient experience in international and domestic travelling. He is familiar with all the rules regulations and the laws. But due to the oversight or over confidence occurred from the complainant he did not take much interest or care in checking the travel document which was laying idle with him for 10 days i.e. 2^nd May to 11^th May 2015. Complainant checked only the details of his wife’s travel document at a glance and satisfied and found in order in every respect. On seeing this, complainant thought that his travel documents were also in order.  He did not verify or cross check the passport either by him or with the opposite party before the travel date. It was complainant’s assumption that travel document will be same as like of his wife’s. As the passenger directly receive the travel document from the consulate he did not show the same to the opposite party before their departure date to ensure that travel documents are in order in every respect. Complainant had to satisfy himself before going to the air port. But he did not do the same. If complainant had been noticed this mistake occurred earlier to their date of departure date and informed this opposite party accordingly, of course  this opposite party had enough time (almost 10 days) to get corrected from the Consulate. It is incorrect to say that on the day (on 11/5/2015) complainant and his wife proceeded for emigration. The emigration officer in charge noticed and found out the mistake in visa issued to the complainant.  Complainant Mr.Ramesh, is getting the validity for his visa only from 12/5/2015 but at the same time the visa was issued to the complainant’s wife having a validity from 11^th  May 2015. The applications are filled up by the complainant only and hence this opposite party is not responsible for the same.  There is no negligence on the part of opposite party. If the complainant had thoroughly verified and cross checked the visa stamped in the pass port or if they have contacted this opposite party with their travel documents  it was delivered directly by the consulate to the opposite party, of course this opposite party would have helped him. It is clear, negligence on the part of the complainant only. The allegations that on the next day the opposite party admitted that it was a mistake of their staff is incorrect and denied. The opposite party submits that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part and the complainants intention is to extract money by raising false and frivolous allegations. It was also contended that for the proper adjudication of the case the Belgium Consulate is a necessary party and they had to be impleaded, otherwise it will cause much hardship and loss to this opposite party. This opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as stated in the complaint and hence the complaint has to be dismissed.

Accordingly complainant filed IA for impleading the Belgium consulate as supplemental 2^nd opposite party. Petition was allowed and they were impleaded as supplemental 2^nd opposite party. Supplemental 2^nd opposite party remained absent after accepting notice from the Forum. Hence they were called absent and set exparte. Complainant filed affidavit along with documents. 1st opposite party filed application to cross examine complainant. Application was allowed and complainant was cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A10 were marked from the part of the complainant.

Opposite party filed chief affidavit and complainant filed application to cross examine opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.1 was cross examined DW1. Evidence was closed and matter was heard.

Issues that arise for consideration

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?

Issues 1 & 2

We have perused the documents as well as affidavit filed by the parties.

Admittedly there is a mistake on the date of visa received by the complainant and his wife and that they could not travel to Brussels to visit their son. They had also suffered mental agony and financial loss. The complainant alleged that they had visited first opposite party office after obtaining the travel documents.  But the first opposite party had denied the above fact. Instead they submit that if they had informed as soon as they received the visa, they should have definitely helped him to correct the mistake. The reason for issuing different dated visas are also unknown. The supplemental second opposite party remained absent and the Forum is in dark with regard to the reason behind it. The complainant had not produced any evidence before the Forum to  prove that they had contacted first opposite party after receiving the visa and they had disowned their liability and refused to helped him. In this context we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of first opposite party. In view of the above facts, the above complaint is dismissed without costs.

  Pronounced in the open court on 16^th February 2017.   

Sd/-

     Smt. Shiny. P.R

                         President

                             Sd/-

             Smt. Suma. K.P

                           Member

                                                                                     Sd/-

           Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                          Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1-      Photocopy of Receipt issued for visa fee by opposite party to the complainant dtd:-20/04/2015.

Ext.A2- Photocopy of E-Ticket to complainant dtd:-16/03/2015.

Ext.A3- Photocopy of E-ticket to complainant’s wife dtd:-16/03/2015.

Ext.A4- Baggage claim card cum boarding pass dtd:- 11/05/2015.

Ext.A5- Baggage claim card cum boarding pass dtd:- 11/05/2015 to complainant.

Ext.A6- Passport copy to complainant dtd:- 29/11/2010.

Ext.A7- Passport copy to complainant’s wife dtd:- 19/03/2015.

Ext.A8-  Photo copy of summary of flight charges

Ext.A9 series- Notice with Acknowledge card. 22/5/2015

Ext.A10- Reply notice to complainant dtd:-05/06/2015

Witness marked on the side of complainant

PW1-Ramesh

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

DW1- Haridas Thottathil

Cost Allowed

NIL