DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2023

                                                                   Filed on: 06/03/2018

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C NO. 104/2018

COMPLAINANT

Antony Bossy, S/o. K.C. Joseph, Maliyakkal Veli, Chandiroor P.O., 688547.

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

I.T.L. Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd., ITL House 39/4704, MG Road, Ravipuram, Cochin 682016.

F I N A L    O R D E R

V. Ramachandran, Member:

This consumer complaint is filed by Antony Bossy, Maliyakkal Veli, Chandiroor alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party which is I.T.L. Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. The brief history of the case is that the complainant approached the opposite party for getting a Visa to Italy for which the opposite party agreed to and obtained all necessary documents and an amount of Rs.2,160/- from the complainant. The complainant states that after one month from this the opposite party informed the complainant that the complainant is not eligible for Italian Visa since the complainant had not travelled to any abroad earlier. The further allegation of the complainant is that the above attitude of the opposite party had caused serious damage and loss to the complainant and therefore the complainant filed this complaint seeking for getting an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with other reliefs.

Upon notice from the Commission opposite party appeared and filed their version.

The opposite party in their version contended that the complainant had approached the opposite party with an intention to travel to Italy but the opposite party discouraged the complainant since he is disqualified to travel to Italy that he has not travelled abroad. The complainant took this as an insult stating that no law says that a person should have previous foreign travel history before travelling to Italy and left their office saying that he will teach them a lesson. The opposite party states they have never asked the complainant to produce any other documents.

The complainant produced 4 documents and which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A4. Exbt. A1 is a bill issued by the opposite party for and amount of Rs.2,160/-, Exbt. A2, A3 and A4 are the copies of bank statement of the complainant.

The points for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is sustained to any sort of deficiency of service, or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible to get any relief from the opposite party?
3. Cost of the proceedings if any?

The Commission upon going through the complaint, version, documents produced by the complainant reaches into the following inference.

The allegation of the complainant is that he had approached the opposite party an Italian Visa has not been disbursed by the opposite party. The complainant had produced Exbt. A1 from which it is very clear that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2,160/- to the opposite party on 04/03/2016 against the head of account  ‘Walk in (Visa & Attestation) cash received from Antony Bosy towards insurance and Italy Vis fee’. Here the allegation of the complainant becomes not worthy since the opposite party is engaged in tours and travels and therefore it is known to them at the first instant itself from the Passport and other documents that the complainant do not have travelled to abroad earlier. Even then the opposite party accepted an amount of Rs.2,160/- from the complainant against the title given above which is  a very clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side the opposite party. Even though the opposite party had filed their version they have not disclosed or denied their bill dated 04/03/2016 (Exbt. A1). This silence from the side of the opposite party is a clear symptom of their deliberate intention to suppress the dealing of the complaint with them and therefore they cannot evade from the responsibility by shifting saying ‘non-joinder of necessary party’. The complainant therefore established his case on merit. Point No. 1 found favour of the complainant and hence the following order is passed.

1. The opposite party shall return the complainant an amount of Rs.2,160/- (Rupees two thousand one hundred sixty only) with interest at the rate of 9% from 04/03/2016 onwards till realization.
2. The opposite party shall pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
3. The opposite party shall pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as cost of proceeding to the complainant.

The opposite parties shall liable to comply with the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt the copy of this order

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 17^th day of November, 2023

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exbt. A1:    Copy bill issued by the opposite party for and amount of Rs.2,160/-,

Exbt. A2:    Copy of bank statement of the complainant.

Exbt. A3:    Copy of bank statement of the complainant.

Exbt. A4:    Copy of bank statement of the complainant.

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Nil

Registrar

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 104/2018

Order Date: 17/11/2023