PER MR PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Makemytrip (India) Pvt., Ltd., challenging the order dated 17th January 2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan Jaipur Bench No. 1 ( in short the State Commission) in appeal No. 1360 of 2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent booked a tour package with the petitioner/opposite party and paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- as booking amount on 23.05.2013. On 21st August 2013, after receiving an email from the opposite party on 20th August 2013, the complainant paid a further amount of Rs.1,92,970/- to an executive of the opposite party. The Swiss Embassy refused the visa of the complainant on 19th August 2013. It has been alleged by the complainant that despite knowing the refusal of visa, the opposite party sent their executive to collect the remaining amount and the complainant paid the same as the complainant was not aware about the refusal of visa till that time. The complainant sought the refund of the total amount from the opposite party however, no positive response was given by the opposite party and therefore, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum for refund of the total amount. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by stating that it is clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions that the amount paid will not be refunded even if the visa is refused. The District Forum vide it's order dated 23.10.2017 allowed the complaint and ordered the opposite party to pay Rs.2,52,970/- along with 9% per annum interest and Rs.21,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 17.01.2018 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/ opposite party. 3. Hence, the present revision petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondent even after service of notice. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that District Forum has observed that since the petitioner had communicated to the respondent about the documents required for the travel vide email dated 08.07.2013, therefore, it was the obligation of the petitioner to obtain a valid visa. In this regard, the learned counsel stated that visa is a prerogative of the concerned Embassy and a travel agent has no influence on the decision of the Embassy. 6. It was further stated by the learned counsel that the State Commission has based its decision on the premise that the petitioner got the money collected from the complainant even after knowledge of rejection of the visa. The State Commission has also observed that the delay in submission of documents by the complainant was inconsequential because the date of interview was after a long gap. The learned counsel stated that these two presumptions on the part of the State Commission are erroneous. 7. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the correct legal position is that the petitioner is merely a facilitator who lodges the documents (including visa documents) with the concerned Embassy. It is evident that the petitioner assumed no responsibility for granted/ refusal of visa. It is submitted that the petitioner’s role was limited to confirming the tour package and not issuance of visa to the respondent. In this regard, the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Maria Margarida de Noronha Tavora e costa and Ors ., vs Travaco Holidays Pvt. Ltd., and Ors – I (20150 CPJ 639 (NC). 8. It was argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner was communicated about the refusal of visa by the concerned Embassy on 26.08.2013 and therefore, it is not correct to allege that the petitioner collected the amount after knowing the rejection of the visa of the complainant. 9. The petitioner stressed upon the payment policy as mentioned in the travel brochure which clearly states that ‘Full and Final payments are required 30 days prior to the outbound tour departure date’. The e-mail dated 20.08.2013 sent by the petitioner was a follow up to the e-mail dated 08.08.2013 requesting the balance payment of the tour package. 10. The State Commission has completely overlooked the documents placed on record wherein the petitioner demonstrated that substantial pre-payments had been made towards the confirmation of the tickets, hotel reservation, etc. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cancellation policy as mentioned in the travel brochure which clearly states that prior to 7 days of departure 100% of Holiday Cost will be deducted. It is thus submitted that the respondent is not eligible for refund of the amount by the petitioner. 11. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. There is no doubt that the petitioner sent their executive to collect the remaining amount of money from the complainant after sending an email to the complainant on 20th August 2013 and by that time the complainant’s visa was already rejected by the Swiss Embassy. Thus, I do not see any fallacy in the State Commission’s observation that the remaining amount was collected after having the information of rejection of visa. It is true that the petitioner does not have any control over the issuance of visa by an Embassy, but it is also true that after rejection of visa the complainant cannot go on the proposed trip. Obviously, the petitioner cannot usurp the money paid by the complainant even though the complainant has not been able to utilize the service of the opposite party and that too for no fault on his behalf. It was only a tourist visa and generally if forms are correctly filled, tourist visa is generally granted until there is some adverse information available with the Embassy about the applicant. When the opposite party is charging huge amount for the tour, they also take some portion as fees. Once a fees is charged for the service, then it is expected that the application for visa will be correctly filled and the chances of rejection would be minimal. The basic point is that if the services of the opposite party have not been availed, then the complainant is definitely entitled for the refund because he is not responsible for cancellation of his tour. The complainant submitted his application and documents as per the advice of the opposite party and therefore complainant cannot be said to be at fault if the visa has been rejected. On the other hand, it is also true that the opposite party/ petitioner herein must have spent some money as administrative expenses in processing the package tour for the complainant and for sending the application to the Embassy for Visa. It has been informed by the petitioner that about Rs.20,000/- is spent as visa fee. From this aspect, in my view, the petitioner should be entitled to retain at least Rs.30,000/-. 12. From the above discussion, the revision petition is partly allowed and the petitioner is directed to refund Rs.2,22,970/- instead of Rs.2,52,970/- as ordered by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission. This amount will be paid to the complainant along with interest at the rate 7% per annum from the date of order of the District Forum 23.10.2017 till actual payment. I also do not find any justification for a compensation of Rs.21,000/- as ordered by the District Forum because interest is also in the form of compensation and consequently the order of the District Forum in respect of the compensation of Rs.21,000/- is set aside. However, the award of cost of litigation as Rs.10,000/- is maintained. The orders of the fora below stand modified accordingly. This order be complied by the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. | 
