Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/13/2014

G.Viswanathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Thomas Cook India (pvt) Ltd and One another. - Opp.Party(s)

T.Vairavanathan

23 Dec 2014

ORDER

   Date of Filing     : 18.03.2014

                                                                                         Date of Disposal: 23.12.2014

           

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com., ….  MEMBER I

                   Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMBER II

 

CC. No.13/2014

 

DECIDED ON THIS 23^rd  DAY OF DECEMBER  2014.

 

G.Viswanathan

S/o Gangatharan

463, Big Bazaar Street, Nagore,

Nagapattinam Taluk & District.                                          … Complainant

                                                                                      

                                                                /versus/

 

1. Thomas Cook India (Pvt) Ltd.,

          184/3, Royal Towers,

          Opp. To Arrs Multiplex,

           Meyyanoore Road,

           Salem- 636 004.

2. Thomas Cook India (Pvt) Ltd.,

           G-4, Nungambakkam High Road,

           112, Eldorado Building,

            Chennai – 600 034.                                                     … Opposite parties

 

                 

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 08.12.2014 on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru.T.Vairavanathan, Counsel for the complainant, Thiru.S.Vimal, Counsel for the opposite parties and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum passed the following

ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that in pursuance of the advertisement  in a daily news paper and the message sent by the 1^st opposite party, the complainant proposed to go on Europe Tour and paid Rs.1,09,352/- by way of 3 cheques issued to the opposite parties in the name of “Thomas Cook India (p) Ltd.,” dated 21.02.2013, 05.04.2013 and 22.04.2013 payable at Karur Vysya Bank, Nagapattinam  Branch.  The complainant was not allowed to go on the tour as his Visa was rejected by the Immigration Officers in Chennai Airport at the midnight on 01.06.2013 for the reason that the Visa given by the opposite parties was not suitable for that tour package intended to be availed by the complainant.  When the complainant and his friend P.R.Boopathy, who was also to travel in that tour package, approached the German Consulate Office at Chennai on Monday (03.06.2013), the German Consulate told the complainant that the Schengen Visa would be given.  But the tour planned by the 1^st opposite party was for only one day stay in German and then it was planned to tour other countries. The complainant came to know that the suitable Visa was not taken by the 1^st opposite party for the complainant’s tour package and that amount to deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant returned  back with disappointment and reported to the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant wrote a letter to the 1^st opposite party on 13.06.2013, requesting him to refund the amount collected from the complainant and also sent a reminder letter on 19.07.2013 through E-mail, but the 1^st opposite party did not repay the amount.  The complainant finally issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 03.09.2013 and the opposite parties having received the notice have not chosen to give any reply nor return the amount to the complainant.  Hence the complainant prays for an order to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1,09,352/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of payment 21.02.2013, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony and physical sufferings and financial loss caused to the complainant, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards this litigation expenses and grant further reliefs as this Forum, may deem fit.

                        3. The gist of the reply version filed by the opposite parties is that the complaint is false and vexatious and filed by the suppression and misrepresentation of facts and the allegations in sub paragraphs 4 to 6 of paragraph III and in sub paragraphs 7 and 8 of paragraph III are denied.  The opposite parties have validly furnished all the tour information to the consulate and after perusing the documents, the German Consulate has neither rejected Visa application nor refused to accept the documents.  The opposite parties have done their services to the complainant with all sincere and bonafide intentions and are neither negligent nor deficient in their service.  The opposite parties after receiving notice sent by the complainant tried to clarify and amicably resolve the issue by calling upon the complainant over phone, but could not       succeed due to want of time.  The complaint is bad for misjoinder of unnecessary party and non joinder of necessary parties.  This complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                        4. The complainant has filed his proof affidavit reiterating all the averments made in the complaint and eleven documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A11.  The Manager working under the 1^st opposite party has filed his proof affidavit in support of the defence of the opposite parties and no document is filed.  Written arguments have been filed by both the sides.

5. Points for consideration:-

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

                       2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

                        6. Point 1: The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not been diligent in obtaining the proper, appropriate and suitable Visa for his Europe tour and owing to their negligence and deficiency of service, the Visa having been found to be inapplicable to his package tour, had been cancelled by the Bureau of Immigration Chennai Airport and the complainant had to return home with disgust  and disappointment  on the cancellation of the tour programme.

                        7. The complainant’s contact with the opposite parties for the arrangement of the Europe tour, the payment of Rs.1,09,352/- by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party for the tour, his arrival at Chennai Airport at the midnight of 1.06.2013 and the cancellation of the complainant’s Visa by the Immigration officials at the Chennai Airport, as it was not the proper and suitable one for his tour package, are all admitted facts.

                        8. The tour document of the opposite parties is filed as Exhibit A1. The particulars of tour programme is filed as Exhibit A2. The copy of the letter of demand sent by the complainant to the opposite parties for the return of the amount and the subsequent reminder are filed as Exhibits A3 and A4 respectively. The office copy of the Lawyer’s notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties and the acknowledgement card of the 2^nd opposite party are filed as Exhibits A5 and A6 respectively. The insurance certificate for travelling issued by the Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., is filed as Exhibit A7.  Exhibit A8 is the copy of the passport of the complainant. The pamphlet containing the instructions relating to the tour is filed as Exhibit A9.  The mail sent by the complainant and reply received from the opposite parties is filed as Exhibit A10 and the Visa cancelled by Bureau of Immigration Chennai Airport is filed as Exhibit A11.

                        9. The opposite parties could not deny their negligence and deficiency of service in getting the proper and suitable Visa for the Europe tour opted by the complainant.  The opposite parties have not taken care to be present at the Airport to ascertain whether all formalities for the departure of the complainant is cleared and he got into the Aircraft to leave India. Their defence in the written version is very vague and evasive without having any substance  and merits.  Exhibit A11 proves the cancellation of the Visa by the Immigration Officials for no fault of the complainant.  Hence it is undoubtedly the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, who have caused the great disappointment to the complainant on the cancellation of his eagerly awaited Foreign tour programme at the last movement.  The opposite parties have not mentioned who are the unnecessary parties in this complaint and who are the necessary parties to be impleaded in this complaint. The opposite parties have raised such objections only for objection sake.  

                        10. Point 2: In the result, the complaint is allowed partly.  Having committed negligence and deficiency of service, the opposite parties are not at all justified in not returning the sum of Rs.1,09,352/-(Rupees one lakh nine thousand three hundred and fifty two only) to the complainant   in spite of his letter of demand and  also a subsequent reminder.  The opposite parties are directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1,09,352/-(Rupees one lakh nine thousand three hundred and fifty two only), either jointly or severally to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 22.04.2013 till its realization. They are further directed to pay the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for his mental agony, inconvenience and expenditure caused to him owing to their deficiency of service  within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall also carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order, till its realization.  The opposite parties are further directed to pay the sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) towards expenses of this complaint to the complainant.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, directed typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this  23^rd  day of  December 2014.

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                        PRESIDENT

 

 List of documents filed by the complainant

 

Ex.A1/Dt. Nil           :The Tour document  and Hotel details given by the opposite parties

               to the complainant.

Ex.A2/Dt.24.04.2013: The Airways ticket details.

Ex.A3/Dt.13.06.2013:  The letter of demand sent by the complainant and his Friend

               Mr. Boopathy to the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A4/Dt.31.07.2013:  The reminder sent by the complainant and his friend

    Mr. Boopathy to the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A5/Dt.03.09.2013: The office copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s Advocate

              to the opposite parties

Ex.A6/Dt:03.09.2013 : The postal acknowledgment received by the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A7/Dt.19.04.2013: The insurance policy issued by the Bajaj Alliance General

   Insurance Company to the complainant.

Ex.A8/Dt.27.07.2009:  The Xerox copy of the Passport of the complainant.

Ex.A9/Dt.Nil              : The Highlights of the tour program of 7 days.

Ex.A10/Dt.08.08.2013: The E-mail communication between the complainant and the

    opposite parties.

Ex.A11/Dt.04.04.2013: The Visa cancelled by the Bureau of Immigration Chennai

     Airport.

 

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

        

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.13/ 2014

Order Dt.:23.12.2014.