Orissa

Cuttak

CC/3/2024

Gautam Mukherji - Complainant(s)

Versus

Meenu Choudhury - Opp.Party(s)

M Agarwal & associates

21 Aug 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.03/2024

Gautam Mukherji,

S/o:Late Asoke Mukherji,

Permanent resident of Raghunath Jew Road,

Telenga Bazar,Cuttack-753009.                            ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

Meenu Choudhury,

Prop. Of Travel Quest,

At :36-37,Bharati Towers,

Forest Park,Bhubaneswar-751009.                            … Opp. Party.

                                 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    04.01.2024

Date of Order:  21.08.2024

 

For the complainant:             Mr. M.Agarwal,Adv. & Associates

For the O.P                :             Mr. D.Narendra,Advocate.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that in order to go for an outing during the summer vacation, the complainant alongwith his wife and two daughters had approached the O.P/Travel Agent in order to facilitate their journey by booking hotel accommodations, flight tickets alongwith sight-seeing etc.  The complainant had planned to visit Greece.  The O.P instead of applying for Visa in order to enable the complainant and his family members enter Greece had insisted for Swedish Schengen Visa as because, according to her, the same is available quickly and through the said Visa one can also travel to any other European countries.  Believing upon such assurances of the O.P, the complainant had applied for the Swedish Schengen Visa through the O.P.  The date of journey from India was on 25.5.2023 from Mumbai where the complainant and his family members were to board the flight to Greece through Lufthansa Airlines.  So after visiting Greece, the complainant was to travel to Sweden but while boarding the flight at Mumbai the said Airlines had denied boarding to the complainant and his family members on the ground that they do not have Visa for Greece instead they had Swedish Schengen Visa.  When the complainant intimated the fact to the O.P, she rescheduled the itenary of the complainant through Indigo Airlines and through Turkish Airlines on 26.5.2023 by virtue of which the complainant and his family members were to travel to Greece from Mumbai vide Istanbul.  But after reaching Istanbul, the complainant and his family members had to return to Mumbai by booking return tickets from Istanbul to Mumbai vide Indigo Airlines and had to desert the trip since because the O.P had not attended the call of the complainant.  The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.12.90 lakh to the O.P towards Visa services, flight booking, hotel accommodation etc.  but due to the faulty service on the part of the O.P the entire travel plan was messed up and the complainant alongwith his family members had to suffer financially, mentally and physically.   The complainant through his letter dated 4.10.2023 had asked the O.P to refund the entire sum of Rs.12.90 lakh as the O.P had failed to provide proper services and had only given false assurances. The O.P through letter dated 25.10.2023 had refused to return the entire sum.  The O.P had thus only refunded Rs.86,123/- to the complainant and had not responded thereafter.  The complainant had thus come up with his case before this Commission seeking direction to the O.P to refund the balance sum of Rs.12,03,877/- alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards his litigation expenses. 

Quite strangely the complainant being a senior counsel has not signed the complaint petition.  Together with the complaint petition, the complainant has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.P has contested this case and has filed written version wherein it is averred by the O.P that prior to 7th April,2023 the complainant had contacted her and had enquired about the various tour options for June,2023.  Out of the options put-forth, the complainant had preferred Greece and wanted to prepone his travel-plan from June,2023 to 25^th of May,2023.  The O.P had then advised the complainant that in case of his travel plan during May,2023, the Visa for Greece would be a challenge.  The complainant had then preferred to apply for Schengen Visa on his own.  The complainant had also requested the O.P to provide standard documents check list and format so as to enable him to apply for Visa.  Accordingly, the complainant had applied Visa on his own but never through the O.P.  The complainant subsequently had intimated about his successful submission of Visa on 8.5.2023 and had asked the O.P to keep trace of the Visa through online status.  On 19.5.23 the complainant had informed the O.P about the successful receipt of his Visa and wanted final quotation for the Greece tour only.  Accordingly, the O.P had sent the final quotation to the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant had made payment towards his flight booking, hotel accommodation booking etc through the O.P.  Accordingly, the O.P had booked and had handed mover all the travel related documents like the Air tickets, hotel bookings, sight-seeing form vouchers etc to the complainant.  In the night of 24.5.23 the complainant informed the O.P that the Lufthansa Airlines is not allowing them to board the flight from Mumbai to Greece.  The complainant requested the O.P to make a Sweden Hotel booking and do the Athens to Stockholm Flights immediately.   With the intention to help the complainant the O.P had made necessary bookings and had sent those to the complainant.  But still the complainant and his family members were not allowed to board the flight.  With the intention to help the complainant and his family members the O.P had spoken to the Assistant Consulate Officer of Swedish Consulate at Kolkata to enquire about the situation and seek assistance.  Accordingly, the complainant though had received a call from the Sweden Embassy, had not answered the call.  The O.P had thereafter booked flight tickets through Indigo Airlines from Mumbai to Athens for the complainant and his family members in order to enable them to prosecute their journey on 26.5.23 and thus the O.P had paid for the said purpose a sum of Rs.15,08,000/- from her own pocket.  Accordingly, the complainant and his family members had boarded the said flight and there was no objection raised through Indian Immigration but while they had reached at Istanbul, the complainant had got a call from a Sweden Embassy intimating that his Visa was revoked and thus instructed him to return back to India.  The complainant no other way but to return.  He had paid a sum of Rs.11,40 lakh to the O.P and the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is yet to receive towards the flight booking and hotel accommodation etc and all the bookings were confirmed before-hand by the O.P for the complainant and his family members.

          Thus, it is the contention of the O.P through the written version that the Visa for the complainant and his family members were never applied by the O.P rather, it was the complainant himself who had applied for those and with the intention to help the complainant the O.P had spoken to the Swedish Consulate but the complainant had failed to attend the phone call from the Swedish Consulate.  The O.P had rather spent huge amount of money in order to facilitate the tour programme of the complainant and his family members on good faith.  Thus, according to the O.P, the allegation as made by the complainant regarding faulty service is incorrect.  The O.P had refunded a sum of Rs.86,123/- to the complainant and thus it is urged by the O.P to dismiss the complaint petition as filed with cost.

          The O.P has also annexed copies of several documents alongwith the written version in order to prove her stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, the written version, the written notes of submission as filed from both sides as well as from the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that the complainant has alleged that the O.P/travel agency had shouldered the responsibility of obtaining the Swedish Schengen Visa and the complainant had paid her Rs.12,90 lakh for their tour itenery including Visa.  The complainant wanted to visit Greece but only when the O.P insisted the complainant to obtain the Swedish Schengen Visa instead of going for Greece Visa.  The complainant had accordingly opted for the same.  As it appears, the complainant and his family members were precluded from visiting any of the European countries since because their Visa was revoked while they were at Istanbul they had received phone call from Swedish Consulate apprising them that their Visa has been revoked so they were required to return back to Mumbai.  Having no other way out, the complainant and his family members had to return back by paying for the return tickets from Istanbul to Mumbai through Indigo Airlines. 

Now the crux of the matter is that if the O.P/travel agent who is a facilitator of the tour itenary of the complainant and his family members had undertaken to provide Visa for them and if she had also undertaken to enable them to visit Greece and for which the complainant had paid her a total sum of Rs.12.90 lakh for all arrangements including Visa.  Keeping such fact in mind while analysing the evidence in hand as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that there is no scrap of document in order to apprise this Commission that if infact the O.P had consented to enable the complainant and his family members to ensure them the desired Visa so as to make their tour itenary successful.  Rather the O.P has contended that the Visa for the entire tour plan were applied by the complainant himself and the O.P was never entrusted for the same.  In absence of any cogent evidence to that effect, this Commission can never jump into a conclusion that infact the O.P is responsible for the disruption in obtaining the Visa for the complainant and his family members.   Moreso, the O.P obviously has no control over the consulate so as enable Visa for anyone.  There is no dispute that the O.P had made all the other arrangements like booking of the flight tickets, hotel accommodations, local sightseeing etc.  Thus, the disruption/dislocation in the tour itenary of the complainant and his family members can never be said here in this case was due to the latches from the side of the O.P.  As such, in the absence of any iota of documents in that matter, this Commission do not find deficiency in any manner on the part of the O.P as alleged by the complainant.  Accordingly, this issue goes against the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

 From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

          Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

          Order pronounced in the open court on the 21^st day of August,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                               

                                                                     

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                      President

                                                                                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                 Member