DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 1414 of 2009 Date of Inst: 29.10.2009 Date of Decision:06.10.2010 Ashwani Kumar Arora s/o Sh.Madan Gopal Arora r/o H.No.121, Sector 2, Panchkula, Haryana. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. Thomas Cook (I) Ltd., through its Managing Director, C-33, Cannaught Place, Inner Circle, New Delhi-110001 2nd Address: Thomas Cook (I) Ltd., through its Branch Manager, SCO 28-29-30, Sector 9-D, Ground Floor, Chandigarh. 2. M/s A.M. Travels through its Manager/Proprietor /Partner SCO 28-29-30, Sector 9-D, First Floor, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.D.K.Singal, Adv. for complainant Sh.Rohit Kapoor, Adv. for OP No.1 Sh.Vivek Sethi, Adv. for OP No.2 --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Ashwani Kumar Arora has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :- i) Reimburse a sum of Rs.85,200/- (on account of visa fee and cancellation charges of air-tickets and hotel bookings etc.) along with interest 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realization. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation for loss. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iv) Pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs as punitive damages. v) Pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he planned a trip to Europe with his family members for duration of 20 days starting from 1st or 2nd June, 2009. So he approached OP-2 for providing services of consultation and facilitation of submission of visa forms and documents. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.21000/- to the OPs as processing fee vide receipt dated 15.05.2009 (Annexure C-1). According to the complainant, he along with his family members submitted application forms for grant of visa and submitted all the required documents mentioned in the check list. It is further the case of the complainant that OPs assured the complainant that he will get the visa before the date of departure. According to the complainant, on 28.05.2009 he received a call from the office of OP-2 telling him that the presence of the complainant is urgently required at Swiss Embassy at New Delhi. So on 29.05.2009, he went to Delhi. A representative ofoP-1 met him and handed over him the visa application forms along with the written message of Swiss Embassy. After going through the visa application forms, the complainant found that the said forms did not bears the signatures of the complainant or his family members and the said forms were not the same which were submitted by him and his family members to OP-2. Even the mobile number of the complainant and his family members were wrongly mentioned on the visa application forms. When the complainant visited the Swiss Embassy, he was told by the officers of the Swiss Embassy that they could not contact the complainant to intimate him about the date of interview for visa because of mentioning of wrong numbers of the mobile phones on the visa application forms. The complainant was also told that the date of interview had already passed. He was advised to fill up another visa application forms for consideration in future. It has further been pleaded that the son of the complainant was to go to Signapore for higher studies on 21.06.2009. So, they had no time to fill up the application forms for visa and therefore, they had to cancel their tour. According to the complainant, he paid a sum of Rs.48,500/- for cancellation of hotel reservations, Rs.13,200/- for cancellation of air tickets and Rs.2500/- on account of various visits to Swiss Embassy, New Delhi. Thus, he had spent a sum of Rs.85,200/-. The case of the complainant is that he could not visit Europe because of the deficiency in service of OPs as the original application forms submitted by him to the OP-1 were not sent to Swiss Embassy and the forms which were submitted to the Swiss Embassy did not bear the correct mobile numbers as a result of which he could not be contacted for interview purposes in time. As per the complainant, OP-2 changed the visa application forms and forged his signatures and his family members on them. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OP-1, it has been pleaded that the complainant never approached it for providing any service for submitting the visa application forms with the Swiss Embassy. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP-1. The complainant never submitted any application form to the OP-1 nor did the complainant pay any service charges to OP-1. Thus, according to OP-1, the complainant is not a consumer qua it. It has been pleaded that OP-2 approached it for submitting the visa application forms of the complainant and his family members at the Swiss Embassy, New Delhi. OP-1 provided the said services diligently and handed over the check list and blank visa forms to OP-2 who in turn returned the same after getting the required signatures and information filled up from the complainant and his family members. OP-1 submitted the visa application forms as received by OP-2 at VFS Switzerland Visa Application Centre without making any changes or alterations. OP-1 has admitted that its representative met the complainant and his family embers on their arrival at New Delhi on 29.05.09 and handed over to them the visa forms and ‘observations’ in writing as given by the Swiss Embassy. It has been specifically denied that any alterations or changes have been made in the visa application forms or the original applications were substituted by forged applications. In these circumstances, according to OP-1, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. In its separate written statement filed by OP-2, it has been admitted that the complainant approached it for providing services of consultation and facilitation of submitting the visa application forms to Swiss Embassy at New Delhi and paid a sum of Rs.21000/- as processing fee. It has also been admitted that the complainant spent a sum of Rs.48,500/- for cancellation of hotel reservation and Rs.13,200/- for cancellation of air tickets. It has further been pleaded that oP-2 handed over the application forms submitted by the complainant along with documents to OP-1 who replaced the same without knowledge of OP-1 and also filled in wrong mobile number of Mr.Ashwani Arora. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. Annexure C-1 is the receipt issued by OP-2 for Rs.21000/- on account of processing fee for submitting the visa application forms of the complainant and his family members to Swiss Embassy, New Delhi. Thus, the complainant hired the services of OP-2 for submission of visa application forms of the complainant and his family members to Swiss Embassy, New Delhi. There is no material on record to prove that the complainant paid any consideration to OP-1 for hiring its services for any purpose nor is there any document on record evidencing any privity of contract in between the complainant and the OP-1. OP-2 has admitted that it handed over the visa application forms of the complainant and his family members for submission to the Swiss Embassy, New Delhi to OP-1. Thus, the privity of contract, if any, is between the oP-1 and Op-2. OP No.1 has no privity of contract and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer qua OP-1. Therefore, the complaint qua OP-1 stands dismissed. 7. Admittedly, the application forms duly filled in and bearing the signatures of the complainant and his family members were handed over to OP-2 by the complainant. Admittedly, the applications forms and documents which reached the Swiss Embassy at New Delhi were different and the said visa application forms were neither filled in by the complainant and his family members nor the said visa application forms bears the signatures of the complainant and his family members. This fact has also been admitted by OP-2 in its written statement. So OP-2 is solely responsible for the submission of visa application forms to Swiss Embassy, New Delhi. 8. It has been admitted by the OP-2 that the complainant the complainant spent a sum of Rs.48,500/- for cancellation of hotel reservation and Rs.13,200/- for cancellation of air tickets. The amount of Rs.21000/- as processing charges has also been received by OP-2. So OP-2 is liable to refund the aforesaid amounts to the complainant along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation expenses. 9. In view of the above findings, the complaint is allowed against OP-2 and the OP-2 is directed to pay the following amounts to the complainant:- i) Rs.48,500/- towards cancellation of the hotel reservation. ii) Rs.13,200/- towards cancellation of the air-tickets. iii) Rs.21,000/- towards processing fee. iv) Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment v) Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation expenses. 10. This order be complied with by the OP No.2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP No.2 shall be liable to refund amount of Rs.1,32,700/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 29.10.2009 till its realization besides costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 06.10.2010 sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
