DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 461 of 2009 Date of Inst: 01.04.2009 Date of Decision:15.09.2010 1. Gaurav Khurana s/o Sh.Sunder Lal. 2. Saru Marwah w/o Sh.Gaurav Khurana Both r/o House No.3270, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh. ---Complainants V E R S U S 1. Thomas Cook (India ) Limited through the Chief Executive Officer, Thomas Cook Building, Dr.D. Naugaji Road, Mumbai-40001 2. Branch Manager, Thomas Cook (India ) Limited, SCO No.28-29-30, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. 3. Amit Nagpal, Executive Channel Sales Support, Thomas Cook (India) Limited, SCO No.28-29-30, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for complainant Sh.Rohit Kapoor, Adv. for OPs. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Gaurav Khurana and Smt.Saru Marwaha have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to:- i) Pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.1 lac on account of damages for arranging another honeymoon trip iii) Pay a sum of Rs.1 lac as compensation for not refunding the deposited amount and arranging the alternative trip. iv) Refund Rs.53000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till its realization. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that their marriage was solemnized on 31.08.2008. The brother of the complainant No.1 approached OP-3 for arranging the honeymoon package for the complainants. On the assurances of OP-3, the brother of the complainant booked a package namely “Swiss Delight Group Tour” of six nights and seven days on 09.09.2008. The brother of the complainant No.1 deposited a gift voucher worth Rs.53,000/- with OPs as advance payment towards booking of the said package. The brother of the complainant No.1 provided all the documents i.e. marriage card, marriage photographs, bank statement, partnership deed of M/s Sunder Emporium, NOC of both the parents etc. as desired by OPs. OPs assured for getting the visa for said honeymoon trip to the complainants. According to the complainants, their visa application was rejected by the Swiss Embassy vide its letter dated 19.09.2008 on following grounds:- i) The purpose of the travel indicated in the application form is doubtful. ii) There is no obvious reason that justified the necessity of traveling to Switzerland. iii) Incomplete and insufficient documents to support the visa application. According to the complainants, due to rejection of the visa application, they had to postpone their honeymoon for next three months which spoiled all the charm and excitement of such an important occasion. It has further been pleaded by the complainants that their application has been rejected due to negligence and deficiency of the OPs in submitting the application along with the required documents. Ultimately, the complainants approached the OPs for refund of Rs.53000/- but OPs instead of refunding the said amount further demanded Rs.40000/- each (total Rs.80000/-) as cancellation charges for Hotel Booking in Switzerland. The complainants served a legal notice dated 19.12.2008 but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OPs, it has been admitted that the brother of the complainant who was having two Holiday Gift Vouchers approached OP-3 for booking of “Swiss Delight Group Tour” of Six Nights Seven days for the complainants. It has been pleaded that OP-3 duly explained the terms and conditions of the said tour. The said terms and conditions are also printed overleaf of the booking form. The brother of the complainant was also told that for undertaking the said tour, both the complainants should have a valid visa for entry in Switzerland. OP-1 offered to assist the complainants and provide service for submitting the application for visa. However, the complainants were told in clear terms that OPs have no control over the officials of the embassy. So the OPs will not be responsible in case the application for visa is rejected. It has been further averred by OPs that the complainants were advised that in case of rejection of visa by U.K./Swiss/Schengen/USA consulates if intimation in that regard is received less than 45 days from the start of the tour, then cancellation charges mentioned in the terms and conditions would be applicable. It has been admitted that on 09.09.2008, it had filled the booking form for the said tour and the complainants deposited the gift voucher worth Rs.53000/- towards part payment of the total cost of the tour. It has been denied that marriage certificate issued by Registrar of Marriage is not required. According to Ops, they requested the brother of the complainant to complete the set of documents and to provide the certificate of marriage issued by the Registrar of Marriages for obtaining the Swiss Visa upon which the brother of the complainant expressed his inability to give the said certificate as according to him the complainants had recently married and obtaining the same would entail considerable time. It has been denied that OPs had given any assurance regarding the grant of visa which is the sovereign function of the country concerned. The complainants were reminded to take complete set of documents in the interview which was scheduled to be fixed on 18.09.2008 but the complainants failed to do so. It has been pleaded that the visa was rejected due to fault of the complainants themselves who created suspicion and did not obtain the marriage certificate. It has further been pleaded that though the cancellation charges as per the terms and conditions of the booking form were accepted by the complainant but still in order to avoid litigation, the OPs has reduced the charges to Rs.23116/- per person aggregating to Rs.46,232/-. Thus, the OPs deducted the said amount of Rs.46,232/- from the amount of Rs.53000/- and offered to pay the remaining amount i.e. Rs.6748/- which the complainants refused to accept and filed the present false and frivolous complaint. In these circumstances, according to OP, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. The case of the complainant is that he had booked “Swiss Delight Group Tour” on the assurances given by the OPs to the effect that services pertaining to package like documentation, visa booking, site scenes, hotel bookings etc. will be provided by OPs. According to the complainants, they had provided all the documents sought for by the OPs for the purposes of obtaining visa. OPs did not demand any other document from the complainant for the purposes of applying for the visa. According to the complainants, from the letter of rejection Ex.P-2, it is apparent that the information provided by OPs regarding for the purpose of tour of the complainants was insufficient. Therefore, their visa was declined. According to the learned counsel for the complainants, at the time of interview, the officials of the consulates inquired from the complainants as to why the marriage certificate has not been attached. The complainant had no answer as the said document was not demanded by the OPs at the time of submission of the application. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the complainants, the said document was necessary for grant of visa and OPs failed to make a demand of the said certificate from the complainants. It is pertinent to mention here that no evidence has been placed on record to prove that the marriage certificate is one of the necessary documents for obtaining the visa for a tour to Switzerland for the purposes of honeymoon. No check list of the embassy requiring such document has been placed on record. Otherwise, from the letter Ex.P-2, it is not clear that the visa has been refused for want of marriage certificate only. For the reasons best known to the consulate, the purpose of the visit of the complainants was found to be doubtful and the documents to support the visa application were insufficient. The order does not specify as to which document was required. 6. In the conditions mentioned overleaf of the booking form, it is apparent that the OPs were not responsible for cancellation of tour on account of non-availability of the visa. Otherwise, also the OPs have no control over the officials of the consulate. Issuance of visa is the sole prerogative of the consulates and it is a sovereign act. So the refusal of visa cannot be attributed to be deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 7. Admittedly, the complainants could not undertake the journey because of non-availability of the visa. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 8. However, as the OPs have admitted in their written statement that they are only liable to pay a sum of Rs.6748/- to the complainants. So OPs are directed to refund Rs.6748/- to the complainants. This complaint is disposed of accordingly. 9. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to refund Rs.6748/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 01.04.2009 till its realization. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced sd/- 15.09.2010 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Cm Sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
