CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.508/2012
MR. GIRISH PRAKASH GUPTA,
S/O. LATE SH. OM PRAKASH GUPTA,
SOLE PROPRIETOR OF
M/S. ECUADOR ENTERPRISES
SHOP NO. 4, 245/30, SCHOOL BLOCK, MANDAWALI FAZALPUR ROAD, …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- VFS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,
15-26, BLOCK-E, 2ND FLOOR, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER,
NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019.
- VISA COUNSELLOR,
EMBASSY OF PORTUGAL
4,PANCHSEEL MARG,
NEW DELHI-110021 ..…..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Date of Institution-31/10/2012
Date of Order- 02/11/2022
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA-PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP 1- M/s VFS Global Services Private Limited, who is a facilitator between the visa applicant and the embassies/High Commissions of the country of which the visa is applied and OP-2- is the Visa counsellor of Embassy of Portugal, who is responsible for determining issues relating to grant of visa to Portugal, praying for compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-.
- It is the case of the complainant that he availed the services of OP 1 to process a visa for Portugal. He along with his colleague Shri Prashant Kumar Sadh was to participate in an international trade fair at Lisbon (Portugal) which was to be held between 30.06.2012 to 08.07.2012. It is stated that complainant submitted his passport and of his colleague to OP 1, with requisite fees, on 19.06.2012.
- It is stated that on 22.06.2012, OP 1 intimated Shri Prashant Kumar Sadh to participate in an interview at Embassy of Portugal on 22.06.2012.
- It is further stated that complainant learned from the website/internet that he has been granted business visa on 26.06.2012. The complainant claims to have learnt from OP 1 on 27.06.2012 that his passport along with visa is called back by OP 2 and the complainant should approach OP 2.
- Upon interaction with OP 2, the complainant and his colleague Shri Sadh were called for interview on 28.06.2012 wherein both were interviewed separately. It is further stated that OP 1 sent back the passport and the business visa of complainant to OP 2 on 29.06.2012. The visa application of Shri Sadh was however rejected.
- It is further stated that OP 1 delivered/handed over the passport of complainant with business visa to the complainant on 02.07.2012. It is stated that since the passport along with visa was handed over to the complainant late, he could not participate in the business exhibition at Lisbon, which caused loss of business to him. Complainant served a legal notice dated 16.07.2012 on OP 1. A reply to the notice was received on 30.07.2012.
- The complainant alleges unfair trade practices and deficiency in service against the OPs because of delay in handing him over his passport with visa. It is claimed that since the envelope containing passport categorically mentioned “urgent”, it was incumbent upon the OP 1 to handover passport physically or should have called up the complainant to come forward to collect it. He claims that he had earned considerable profits by participating in such exhibition in yesteryears.
- OP 1 in is reply, OP 1 has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present complaint on the ground that since the complainant was to travel for business purposes, which is a commercial activity, he does not qualify to be a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
- It has further stated that it only manages visa related administrative and non-judgmental tasks for the Embassies/High Commissions. The privilege of grant or rejection of the visa application is the prerogative of the concerned government/Embassy/High Commission. OP 1 after submission of application, collects passports in sealed envelopes from the concerned embassy and returns it to the applicants in the same sealed conditions.
- It is further submitted that passports collected from the Portugal embassy, on the previous day, could be collected from the office of OP 1 between 0900 to 1200 hours. However, the passports sent by OP 1, in the morning to Portugal embassy could be collected between 1300 to 1600 hours on the same day. It is stated that these time-lines for collection of passports are clearly mentioned on the website of OP 1.
- The visa applicants have an option to track the status of their visa application either by visiting the website of OP 1, or by sending SMS “VISA PT” followed by passport number to a particular number or by visiting physically the application center of OP 1 or by calling up the helpline number of OP 1. It is categorially mentioned that to avail the facility of having the passport sent at the designated address, visa applicant must deposit Rs. 250/- as additional fees, which facility the complainant had not opted for, therefore, the complainant cannot claim that the passport should have been delivered to him at his address.
- It is stated that the OP 1 initially received the passport of the complainant with business visa on 26.06.2012. It is further stated that shortly after receiving the passport of the complainant, OP 1 received an email from the First Secretary of the Embassy of Portugal, calling upon them not to hand over the passport to the complainant but to return it to the embassy, the next morning. In compliance with the said directions, OP 1 on 27.06.2012 sent back the passport of the complainant to the Embassy. It is further stated that the complainant was conveyed the fact of re-submission of passport to the Embassy via an email and orally on 27.06.2012.
- It is further stated that OP 1, ordinarily, does not call the visa applicants to inform them about status of their application. A call is made to the visa applicants only when they fail to collect their respective passports even after the expiry of thirty days, calculated from the date of receipt of passport by the OP 1 from the concerned Embassy.
- It is further submitted that the passport of the complainant was received by OP 1 from the Embassy of Portugal on 29.06.2012 at 17:58 hours. It is submitted by OP 1 that passports could not have been delivered earlier than 02.07.2012 as the time for collection of passports had expired prior to receipt by OP 1 from Embassy of Portugal. It is noted by this Commission that 29.06.2012 was a Friday and the next working day was 02.07.2012 being Monday.
- Complainant has filed a replication which broadly denies what is stated in the reply however, it clarifies that information about his passport was uploaded at 5:08 PM which is contrary to rules.
Both the parties have filed evidence by way of affidavits and their respective written submissions. OP 1 has filed a written statement. OP 2 was proceeded ex-parte on 06.12.2013.
OP 1 has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present complaint on the ground that since the complainant was to travel for business purposes therefore, he does not qualify to be a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
This Commission having gone through the record of the case, is of the view that the complainant is a consumer of OP 1 notwithstanding the fact that he was travelling for business, therefore, this objection is without any merit.
The facts are not much in dispute. It is admitted by the parties that the complainant submitted his passport for getting visa for Portugal on 19.06.2012; complainant was informed by OP 1 that his passport and visa has been recalled by Embassy of Portugal on 27.06.2012. Complainants processed Passport with business visa was returned by Embassy to OP 1 on 29.06.2012 and OP 1 handed over the processed passport and visa to complainant on 02.07.2012. The Commission has gone through email dated 26.06.2016 marked as Ex-OP1W-1/E, which barred OP 1 from handing over the passport to the complainant and directed them to return it to the Embassy next morning. It is noted that OP 1 was only an intermediary to facilitate visa application between visa seekers and Embassies. It cannot act contrary to the instructions issued by OP 2. Undoubtedly, because of instructions issued by OP 2 there was delay in delivery of passport to the complainant however the OP 1 cannot be held responsible for it.
OP 2 represents a sovereign country which has absolute power to determine who should be granted visa and the process of its determination. OP 2 thus cannot be held responsible for any delay.
The Commission has gone through Ex. OP1W-1C, a screen shot from the website of OP 1 clearly indicating that passports processed on the previous day can be collected between 0900 to 1200 hours and passport processed on the same day can be collected between 1300 to 1600 hours from the office of OP 1. Both the parties assert that the information regarding passport of complainant was uploaded after 5:00 PM albeit there is a difference in time stated by the conflicting parties. The Complainant asserts information was uploaded at 5:08 PM, while OP 1 states the passport was received at 5:58 PM. Thus, it is evident that the passport was received by the OP 1 after the time prescribed for collection of passports on the same day. The passport could have been delivered only on the next working day. As noted above, 29.06.2012 was a Friday, thus the earliest delivery date for the passport was 02.07.2012 on which date it was handed over to the complainant.
As regards the submission of the complainant that his passport should have been delivered to at his mentioned address, we have seen Ex-OP-1W01/D which categorically states that visa seekers who avail the facility of courier at their specified address, must deposit a fee of Rs. 250/-. The OP 1 has stated that complainant has not availed courier service, which fact is not challenged by the complainant therefore, he is not entitled to delivery of passport at his specified address. For the reasons stated above, this Commission does not find that OP 1 and OP 2 have committed any unfair trade practices or are guilty of deficiency in service.
The complaint is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties to be supplied copy of the order as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Order be uploaded on the website.
