DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.685/12
Shri Ved Prakash Vohra
R/o B-142, Dayanand Colony
Lajpat Nagar IV
New Delhi-24. .…Complainant
VERSUS
Branch Manager Thomas Cook
Flat No.M-21, D-15
South Extention Part-II
New Delhi-110049.
General Manager, Thomas Cood (India) Ltd.
Flat No. M-21, D-15, South Extention Part-II
New Delhi-110049.
Chief Executive Officer,
Thomas Cood (India) Ltd.
324, Dr. D.N. Road Fort,
Mumbai-400001. ….Opposite Parties
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution:27.12.2012
Date of Order :12.09.2022
Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi
Complainant has requested to pass an award directing M/s Thomas Cook (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to make full refund of the amount paid alongwith such interest as this count deems fit; (ii) to pay compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- towards mental torture etc. etc.
Brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant and his daughter had booked 11 days Premium Budget European Tour along with complimentary Budget East European Tour of 7 days in continuation. Later on, the 7 days tour was cancelled and Rs.35,000/- was given discount. It was alleged that the OP, being experience in tour management, could be aware of the fact that UK VISA is a difficult one to get and can cause delay. Brochure of the OP also states that “The departure dates requested by you will be confirmed after you obtain UK VISA and is subject to availability of the tour at that point of time”.
The travel departure date (i.e. 20.07.2012) was suggested by the representative/employee of the OP Company. The complainant also gave consent for the above mentioned date. However, in his e-mail dated 12.06.2012 Mr. Seth of OP had suggested that departure date was suggested keeping in view VISA time-line into consideration. The same is exhibit at E-2. The complainant had made the full and final payment for his travel tour package and he was assured to take up tour on 20.07.2012. On 9th July, 2012, the OP informed the complainant’s daughter that due to late receipt of VISA from UK Embassy, they have to change their date from 20th July to next date. When the complainant contacted the OP to work out mutually acceptable future travel date, the complainant was asked to pay further Rs.34,000/- per person as penalty on account of change in travel date. It was also alleged that the OP should not have confirmed the departure date as the OP was well aware that the complainants did not have the UK VISA. It was maintained by the complainants that as per terms & conditions, it is clearly mentioned that the departure dates will be confirmed after obtaining the UK VISA and is subject to availability of the tour at that point of time. Therefore, the OP itself violated the terms & conditions and penalty amount was shifted upon complainants.
It is also averred by the complainants that they had placed reliance upon 12th June, 2012 email from representative of OP further stating that “kindly let me know your decision immediately so that we can suggest a confirmed departure date keeping the time line into consideration”. It seems that the above email was misleading. As same is contrary to the terms and conditions confirmation of departure date was to be done only after obtaining the UK VISA. Therefore the complainants are raising the decision of OP to suggest the departure date vide e-mail on 12.06.2012 in question when they were not in possession of UK VISA. It was also further acknowledged by Raveesh Khullar, representative of OP vide his mail dated 13.06.2012 for confirmation of departure date with Ruby Vohra – daughter of the complainant that as per our telephonic conversation, pleased to inform that we are going ahead and confirming you on our premium Budget tour of Europe departing on 20.07.2012”. The same is annexed as annexure-C-3. The complainant made full and final payment on 30.06.2012 and again they were assured about the departure date. The same is exhibited as annexure-C-4. One of the representative of OP also stated vide its e-mail dated 24.08.2012 that “Normally passports are not sent further checks”. The Complainant alleged that it was unfair, unprofessional and unethical on the part of employee-representatives of OP to assume that the passports of complainants would come in normal course and would not be sent for further checks. All this reflects on the part of OP, deficiency in service and negligent attitude of employees of OP.
OP on the other hand, filed its reply interalia raising some preliminary objections. The OP had raised the question on pecuniary jurisdiction. OP further alleged that the entire complaint is based on impermissible conjectures, inferences and surmises and completely devoid of merits. The alleged claim for refund of Rs.2,62,621/-along with interest are per se untenable besides being imaginary and preposterous being excessive amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.18 Lakhs. Compensation to be awarded has to be quantified on a rational basis on the materials produced before adjudicating authority. The OP also stated that the departure date was also suggested to them twice before the date 20.07.2012. The OP vehemently contradicted the statement of complainants about levy of penalty to the extent of Rs.34,300/- per persons as it was only cancellation charges of Airlines tickets and hotel booking and two seats which were going empty in the flight destined for 20.07.2012. VISA issuing Authority requires details of hotel bookings, return tickets of the passengers traveling. As such, airlines tickets, hotel booking are required to be made before applying for he VISA. It is further contended by OP as Brochure of OP provides that “Thomas Cook will assist you to obtain the VISA from the concerned authorities/consulates” and further mentioned “Please note that it is entirely at the discretion of the concerned Embassy to grant or reject VISA even after submitting all relevant documents and company would not be held responsible for the same”. The earlier tour of Eastern Europe was cancelled due to less strength of the tour. The checks are conducted by High Commission and may not be considered as glitches on the part of OP. VISAs of the complainants were stuck with the Embassy, hence, no role of the OP in this regard. It was maintained by OP that on cancellation of Eastern European Tour, the discount of Rs.35,000/- per person extended to the complainants. It was rightly demanded Rs.34,000/- per person as the OP incurred expenditure on account of cancellation of airtickets and hotel booking etc.
Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence in affidavits. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into entire gamut of issues. Due consideration was given to the arguments. It may be relevant to point out here that the complainant vide its application dated 28.07.2015 requested this Commission to implead his daughter - the other complainant, and further to reduce the amount of compensation from 18 Lakh to 16 Lakh. Reply to this application was also filed by the OP. This Commission after considering the request vide its order dated 17.12.2018 rejected the plea of the complainant for impleadment of the other complainant as no cogent or valid reason was provided at the stage of final hearing. As regards to reduction in compensation amount, this Commission had found that no prejudice will be caused to OP if the same is reduced and allowed. Hence the said application is partly allowed.
It would be seen from the material that the complainant was given departure date for boarding the tour as mentioned above. The departure date i.e. 20.07.2012 was a mutually accepted date. But it is seen that the complainants’ VISA could not be issued in time i.e. well before the departure date. In view of this, the OP had to cancel the departure date for the complainants. The complainants were asked to pay Rs.34,000/- per person for the cancellation of air-tickets, hotel booking and two seats remained vacant. All these cancellation charges forced the OP to request to demand these charges from complainant. As we have discussed above in details, the complainant had maintained that it is the responsibility of the OP not to go for booking of the hotel accommodation and purchasing of the tickets as the Brochure of the OP itself states that “The departure dates requested by you will be confirmed after you obtain the UK VISA and is subject to availability of the tour at that point of time”. It would be seen that the representative of OP vide its e-mail dated 13.06.2012 had confirmed the dates before grant of UK, VISA. At the same time, OP rebutted the above argument of the complainant on the premise that VISA application could not be processed unless the intended traveller gives hotel booking dates and confirmed air-tickets. In such circumstances, the OP has to resort to the booking of hotel accommodation and purchasing of air tickets in advance before the confirmation of VISA.
Considering the materials placed before us, we are of the considered opinion that the OP is found deficient in service and negligence to the extent only that if he had not refunded the amount paid by the complainant for booking of tickets etc. Therefore, OP is directed to refund the due amount after deducting the cancellation charges within one month from the receipt of this order. Further since the said amount was lying with the OP the rate of interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the case here is allowed failing which the rate of interest shall be leviable @9% per annum till its realisation.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
