DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No. 446/2014

Shri S. C. Jain

13, Palam Marg, Vasant Vihar,

New Delhi-110057                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

M/s Travel Spirit International Pvt. Ltd.

Taneja House, I-84, Second Floor,

Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110084

Also at:

218, Splendor Forum,

Jasola District Centre,

New Delhi-110025                                              ….Opposite Parties

                                                  Date of Institution      :         24.11.14       Date of Order                :         30.03.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member - Kiran Kaushal

Briefly put the case of the complainant is:-

1. The complainant, S.C. Jain with his wife and a friend planned to visit abroad for which they hired the services of M/s Travel Spirit International Pvt. hereinafter referred to as OP. The initial holiday package decided by the couple and his friend was for Spain, Turkey and Portugal for an amount of Rs. 3,76,342/. The complainant made advance payment of Rs.50,000/- and thereafter, Rs.2,06,000/- to OP on 27.04.2013 and 16.05.2013 respectively. The bank statement for the payment is annexed as Annexure-2 and Annexure-3. The complainant had various grievances and alleged deficiency in service against the OP on following grounds.
2. It is alleged by the complainant that OP charged Rs.26,000/- per couple from the complainant for applying multiple/ double entry visa to Schengen countries and Turkey but later the complainant had to change his programme as only single entry visa was obtained for Schengen countries and the charges for which were only Rs.13,000/- per couple.
3. It is next alleged that return tickets of the complainant were booked after the expiry of the visa as a result of which the trip was rescheduled and cancellation was charge from the complainant. The complainant further states that the complainant along with his friends were to go on holiday together but due to the deficiencies and change in holiday plan, complainant was constrained to travel separately. It is next averred that the complainant’s plan was changed from 10, June to 15, June due to non-availability of the flight. Therefore, the complainant had to miss the visit to Toledo and other important places.
4. It is further stated that OP threatened the complainant as he requested to handover the air tickets, hotel bookings etc. The documents related to travel were handed over to the complainant only on the day of travel i.e. 13.06.2013 and after the payment of the excess amount of Rs.1,30,133/- was made by the complainant to the OP. It is next alleged that OP deliberately charged excessively to the complainant. The complainant realized while on holiday that OP had illegally charged the complainant for four days at Barcelona instead of two days. OP had deliberately booked the hotels on non-refundable rates. Further it is also alleged that the Euro rate was agreed / quoted @ Rs. 72/- per Euro to the complainant and more than 75 per cent of the total quoted amount was paid to OP in advance but still the bill amount was excessively charged @ Rs.78/- per Euro.
5. The complainant further averred that when Cappadocia tickets were booked 75 Euro were charged by the OP @ Rs.72/- per Euro but when the cancellation charge was billed, the price of the ticket was debited at 84 Euro per ticket @ Rs.78/- per Euro.
6. It is further averred that at Marbella the hotel rates were 60 Euro plus 64 Euro for car parking plus 15 Euro for breakfast and total 99 Euros whereas OP charged 170 Euro per day from the complainant.
7. Aggrieved by the circumstances above and despite several reminders via telephonic calls, emails and letters, OP failed to rectify the defects, therefore, the complainant approached this forum with the prayer to direct OP to provide all the bills of payments made on behalf of the complainant to third parties. Further to direct OP to return the price excessively charged from the complainant which amounts to Rs.70,440/- and award a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental harassment, loss of professional time etc. along with the cost of litigation.   

2. OP resisted the complaint by filing its written statement. It is submitted by OP that complainant’s friend approached OP for booking a trip for himself and his wife for 14.06.2014 and complainant and his wife for 17.06.2014 which was later preponed to 13.06.2013 for Spain, Turkey vide email dated 08.04.2013. The said mail was replied to on 09.04.2013 laying out the details of the tour as per complainant’s specification. The trip was finalized via Turkish Airlines for Spain and Turkey and Rs.3,76,342/- was fixed as final amount for the couple on which Rs. 2,50,000/- was received as advance leaving a balance payment of Rs.1,26,342/-.

2.1    It is further submitted that after all the hotels and internal flights were already booked, OP received an email dated 06.06.2013 from the complainant’s friend showing their disinterest in travel to Turkey due to the protests that were taking place in Turkey at that point. However, at this stage, the hotel in Turkey had already been booked on non-refundable basis and the same was informed at the time of booking to the complainant’s friend who was acting on behalf of the complainant in finalizing the trip. It is stated that the complainant was already informed about the non refundability  clause and only after understanding its repercussions, a go ahead was given to the same as the complainant insisted on booking a low tariff hotel. It is further stated that the entire trip had to be reorganized at the very last moment as the flight tickets to Turkey were cancelled and the flight tickets to Spain were rebooked. The cancellation of the flight ticket with Turkish Airlines with attracted cancellation charges of Rs.39,260/-. The same was duly informed vide email dated 12.06.2013 and accepted by the complainant.

2.2.   It is next submitted by the OP that the complainant was updated at every step verbally and via numerous emails. The complainant was informed by email each and every booking made by OP to make the trip comfortable. In fact complainant’s friend had also via email dated apologized for being too demanding.

2.3    OP has specifically denied that they charged Rs.26,000/- to the complainant for the visa. It is submitted that the visa fee charged for the Spain was Rs.12,800/- per couple and not Rs.26,000/-. Further it is submitted that all visas are applied by OP based on clients demand and need. However, it is entirely at the Embassy’s discretion the type of visa they wish to provide. Therefore the Embassy own discretion granted single entry visa to the complainant and his wife. As regards the Embassy’s discretion the same is mentioned in point 7 of the ‘Booking Terms and Conditions’ signed by the complainant.  It is further submitted that it is not OP’s policy to work on credit and therefore, all its customers have to pay the entire outstanding amount before the departure date. It is stated that all payments have to be made in advance prior to the commencement of the trips therefore, in this regard, complainant’s allegations are unjustified.

2.4    It is further submitted that the trip to Barcelona was shortened by two days due to non availability of flights. The refund for two days of Rs.28,743/- was offered to the complainant via email dated 03.07.2014 which was initially agreed to by the complainant. OP further submits that due to complainant’s regular interference and comparison of rates, OP had booked the tickets on non-refundable basis as this was comparatively cheaper. It is submitted that as per OP policy, OP charges the currency rates as on the date on which full and final payment is made. The policy of the company with respect to the rate of exchange was clearly mentioned in the email dated 08.04.2013. It is further submitted that OP charged 88 Euros for cancellation of tickets for Cappadocia which included the cost of the tickets i.e. 77 Euro per person and the additional amount includes credit card charges for booking and the service charge. It is therefore, prayed by OP that  the complainant has sought to mislead the Forum with false and misleading facts with oblique malafide intention to enrich himself, hence the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit is filed on behalf of the complainant wherein all the averments made in the complaint are reiterated. Affidavit of Shri Jasbir Singh, Senior Manager (HR Admin.) in evidence has been filed on behalf OP.
4. Written arguments have been filed by the OP.
5. Complainant had filed an application under Rule 10 of the Consumer Protection Rules and section 30 read with section 151 CPC for procurement of certain documents like bill receipts, tickets etc. Reply to the application along with the relevant documents has been filed on behalf of the OP. Therefore, the application stands infructuous.
6. After having heard the arguments and perusing the record, admittedly the complainant had booked tour package with OP for Rs. 3,76,342/- and Rs.2,50,000/- was paid in advance by the complainant to the OP. As per the initial programme, the trip was finalized via Turkish Airlines for Spain and Turkey. The date of travel requested was 17.06.2013 which is referred to in email dated 08.04.2013. Later there was request on behalf of the complainant via email dated 06.06.2013 showing their disinterest in travelling to Turkey due to protests taking place in Turkey at that point of time. Therefore, the plan was altered and the complainant chose the tour package for Spain only.
7. It is the case of the complainant that OP overcharged the complainant and deliberately tried cheating him by booking the hotels on non-refundable rates. The complainant has nowhere denied that he insisted on low tariff hotel and was informed regarding the non refundibility clause prior to the commencement of their journey. As regards the contention of single entry visa, OP’s role was that of a facilitator it is the prerogative of the Embassy of the country to grant the visa and decide which type visa is to be granted to whom.
8. Further the contention as to overcharging or discrepancy in the rate of exchange, it is clearly mentioned in the ‘Booking Terms and Conditions’ provided by OP that the rate of exchange existing at the time of final payment would be charged. The complainant should have objected to the same before agreeing/ signing the terms & conditions. Hence, the Forum finds the contention to be misconceived.
9. The next issue raised by the complainant is that the complainant received threats at the last moment by OP. The Forum is of the opinion that it is a common practice that you have to make the full and final payment prior to the commencement of the travel. So OP was justified in not handing over the air tickets and hotel bookings without receiving the full and final payment from the complainant.
10. As regards the excessive charge on cancellation, we find the OP again to be justifiable as he has no control over the fluctuating foreign currency exchange rates. Same is true about the hotel rates which fluctuate on demand and supply basis. Regarding rest of the excess charge the OP has clearly mentioned that the additional charge was that of the credit card charges plus service charges. Therefore, we find no reason to believe that the OP was misleading and cheating the complainant.  
11. This Forum is of the opinion that the OP tried to cooperate with the complainant when the complainant changed his plan at the eleventh hour. Despite being the month of June the primetime/peak season to travel OP tried its best to reschedule and reorganize the programme of the complainant which was planned in April for June but was changed finally, 10 days prior to the date of travel. The complainant made various changes in his travel plan. Further going through the trail mail there is no denying the fact that the OP kept updating the complainant on daily basis and apprised the complainant of the situation at every step for the convenience of the complainant. The email dated 08.06.2013 on behalf of the complainant clearly reflects and admit that it was the complainant’s change of plan which had caused inconvenience and added additional burden to the OP to reorganize and make arrangements for the complainant.
12. From the discussion herein above, this Forum is of the opinion that OP was not deficient in service. Complaint is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 30.03.19.