Delhi

East Delhi

CC/921/2013

VINAY KR. BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THOMAS COOK INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 921/13

 

Shri Vinay Kumar Bansal

R/o 95, Shreshtha Vihar

Near Anand Vihar, Delhi – 110 092                                          ….Complainant

Vs.

M/s. Thomas Cook India

D-15, Marketing Zone

Main Ring Road

Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092                                                         ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 19.10.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 29.11.2017

Judgment Passed on: 06.12.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by the complainant,         Shri Vinay Kumar Bansal, against M/s. Thomas Cook India (OP) with allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

2.         Facts in brief are that in the month of April’ 2012, the complainant was approached by the official/representative of OP, who allured the complainant to plan a trip to Europe at reasonable price and requested the complainant to meet higher officials of OP.  The complainant visited the Noida office of OP and booked a trip to Europe bearing no. TCYU15062012 in the month of    June’ 2012, for which he issued two account payee cheques bearing               no. 408360 dated 26.04.2012 and no. 359450 dated 16.04.2012 for                Rs. 40,000/- each in favour of OP.  The said cheques were drawn from the accounts of the complainant and his wife Ms. Sarita Bansal along with documents as per requirement of OP. 

            It has been stated that after 10 days, one of the officials of the OP called the complainant and requested to get the passport of Ms. Sarita Bansal renewed as it had validity of 20 years and for European/Schengen visa, a passport with 10 year validity was required.  The complainant requested the official to check the validity of complainant’s passport as well, which was refused.  

            It has further been alleged that passport of Ms. Sarita Bansal was returned on 20.05.2012 for renewal, which was renewed as per directions/advice of officials of OP under Tatkal Service by Regional Passport Office on 29.05.2012 after paying Rs. 2,100/-.  The renewed passport was handed over to Mr. Alok Jha, the official of OP.  After 2-3 days, the complainant received a call from the same official requesting for renewal of passport of the complainant on similar grounds as of the complainant’s wife, which was renewed on 08.06.2012 by paying Rs. 10,100/-.  On the same day, the renewed passport was handed over to OP, but he was assured by official of OP that they would get visa from European Embassy for tour, scheduled for 15.06.2012, for which Rs. 8,000/- were charged as visa fees, but no receipt was issued.  It has further been stated by the complainant that in his regular visits to Noida and Patparganj office of OP, the complainant was assured by the official that the visa process was in progress and the same would be allowed. 

            Unfortunately, the trip scheduled on 15.06.2012 was cancelled due to non-availability of visa and after that the complainant through personal visits, letters and emails requested the OP to refund the deposited amount.  Legal notice dated 14.05.2013 demanding the refund was neither replied nor complied with.  Hence, the present complaint for directions to OP to pay       Rs. 92,400/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from 26.04.2012 till realization;   Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental torture and agony and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation.

            Complainant has annexed copy of statement of account of his saving account and his wife’s saving account, legal notice dated 14.05.2013 alongwith postal receipts and letter dated 15.02.2013 addressed to the Assistant Manager of OP, with the complaint.       

3.         OP filed their reply upon service of the summon in the present complaint, where they raised several pleas in their defence such as; there was no cause of action in favour of the complainant; the complainant had not suffered any loss, hence was not entitled to any compensation.  It was submitted that the complainant alongwith three other persons namely        Shri Raj Kumar, Smt. Babli Mittal and Smt. Sarita Mittal had approached the OP and had got tour booked with 15.06.2012, as date of departure.

            It was denied that Mr. Alok Jha, was official/in employment with OP.  It was submitted that the complainant had signed the booking form contained in the brochure, thereby accepting and agreeing to the terms and conditions.  The printed checklist was provided to the complainant, which clearly enumerated the documents required for the purpose of processing visa.  It was further submitted that for the passengers applying for Schengen visa, in case their passport was valid for 20 years and if issued before 2001, it was essential for such persons to apply for fresh passport as the Schengen consulate offices were unable to read the older barcode, which was clearly mentioned in the checklist. 

            It was stated that the complainant was aware of the requirements and had assured the OP that he would provide the renewed passport in 2^nd or 3^rd week of May 2012.  It was submitted that as per terms and conditions regarding “Cancellation due to Visa Rejection”, it was mentioned as “Kindly note it is entirely at the discretion of the concerned Embassy to grant or reject visa even after submitting all the relevant documents and the company would not be held responsible for the same.  The Company is not at all liable for such cases or has any influence on the consulate/embassy’s decision.  The role of the company is only to provide necessary guidance to the client for the purpose of applying for visa”. 

            It was also submitted that it was delay on the part of the complainant in getting the passport renewed, due to which there was delay in applying for visa, thus, no deficiency in service could be attributed to OP.  Vide email dated 19.02.2013, the complainant was informed that since the booking was cancelled by the complainant on the last day before the date of departure, thus as per terms and conditions, the respondent was entitled to charge such cancellation charges from the complainant as mentioned below:

Cancellation charges when a cancellation is made	Per person charges
35 days or more prior to the departure of the tour	INR 40,000/-
34-25 days or more prior to the departure of the tour	INR 70,000/-
24-15 days or more prior to the departure of the tour	INR 1,00,000/-
14 days or less prior to departure of the tour or a “No Show” on the tour	100% of the Tour Cost

           

            Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied.

            Booking form as Annexure R-1, terms and conditions as Annexure R-2 and email dated 19.02.2013 as Annexure R-3 have been annexed with the reply.       

4.         In rejoinder to the WS filed on behalf of OP, the complainant denied all the contents of the reply and reiterated those of the complaint.  It was stated that the complainant was never provided with the copy of the brochure containing terms and conditions.

5.         Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties.  Complainant examined himself and deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and got exhibited statement of account as Ex.CW1/1 and Ex.CW1/2, legal notice dated 10.05.2013 as Ex.CW1/3, postal receipts as Ex.CW1/4 and complaint dated 15.02.2013 as Ex.CW1/5.

            Shri Saraansh Seth was examined on behalf of OP who has reiterated the contents of their reply and has relied on Annexure annexed with their reply.

6.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant as well as Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material on record.  Receipt of        Rs. 40,000/- each on behalf of the complainant and his wife is an admitted fact.  It has been stated that the complainant and his wife could not get visa due to the reason that the complainant and his wife did not have valid passports required for European Visa.  OP has annexed booking form as Annexure R-1, wherein it has been stated “all the terms and conditions as included in brochure and has been signed on behalf of all the persons.  If we look at the terms and conditions, annexed as Annexure R-2, it has been clearly mentioned that “All the clients travelling on a Thomas Cook Holiday tour must be in possession of valid visa.  However, kindly note that it is entirely at the discretion of the concerned Consulate/Authorities to grant/reject visa even after submitting all relevant documents and the company will not be held responsible for the same.  The company is not at all liable for such cases or has any influence on the Consulate/Embassy’s decision.  The role of the company is only to provide necessary guidance to the client for the purpose of applying for visa.  The company will not be responsible for non-issuance of visa due to receipt of incomplete/delayed documents from the clients.  It is a possibility that the Consulate may risk the passengers to appear for a personal interview.  This is at the sole discretion of the Consulate/Authorities.  If the required documents are not submitted by the client, the issuance of visa will further be delayed/rejected and the client will not hold Thomas Cook liable for the same.  Client should adhere to all the norms and conditions laid by the Consulate/Embassy.

            Upon rejection of visa, if the client wishes to re-apply further visa, he/she is liable to pay again the requested fees to the Consulate and he/she will not claim from Thomas Cook.”

            Thus, OP was not bound to get visa for the complainant, which has been clearly mentioned in terms and conditions, it is settled principle of law that parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract.  Hence, present complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

              Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President