Punjab

Sangrur

CC/683/2020

Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

More than Travel - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Darshan Kumar Gupta

16 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 683

 Instituted on:   16.12.2020

                                                                         Decided on:     16.12.2024

 

Ramesh Kumar aged 58 years son of late Sh. Chhaju Ram Prop. R.K. Marble Industry, Patiala Road, Sangrur, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

More Than Travel Private Limited, 152-P, Sector-38, Gurgaon now Gurugram-122001 (Haryana) through its Manager.

             ….Opposite party. 

For the complainant:   Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.              

For OP                    : Shri Sandip Kumar Goyal, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill                           :President

Sarita Garg                                                :Member

Kanwaljeet Singh                                      :Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party pleading that on 24.10.2018 Shri Sandeep Rana, Manager of the OP came to the business premises of the complainant and made a proposal of 10 days European Travel Package for Switzerland, Italy and France for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- which included  boarding, lodging, transportation and visa expenses which was to commence from the second week of January, 2019. Accordingly, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- in advance on 24.10.2018 to the OP for booking of a seat and it was further agreed that the OP will receive the remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant at the time of departure from the International Airport, New Delhi.  Further case of complainant is that after about two months he telephonically contacted the OP regarding its visa status, but the OP time and again made excuses that the visa application of the complainant is pending and visa sanction is awaited from the embassies. Further case of complainant is that the OP transferred an amount of Rs.20,500/- in the account of the complainant on 21.01.2019 without assigning any reason. Further case of complainant is that the complainant did not receive any visa rejection/acceptance letter from the Embassies of the country mentioned by the OP on 24.10.2018. Thus the OP has misappropriated the amount of Rs.29,500/- of the complainant. The OP did not refund the said amount of Rs.29,500/- despite serving of legal notice dated 26.10.2020 upon the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite party be directed to refund the amount of Rs.29,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 24.10.2018 and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and further an amount of Rs.33,000/- on account of  litigation expenses.

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the tour was booked for commercial purpose, that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious and filed only to harass and humiliate the OP, that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On merits, launching of any scheme by the OP has been denied rather the OP customized a business tour package on the request of the Sangrur District Industrial Chamber (SIDC), who approached the OP to plan a group tour of their members to Agema Exhibition, 2018 in Bern, Switzerland. It has been denied that the OP was to arrange the visa for the complainant. It is further averred that as per terms and conditions, complainant had to deposit Rs.50,000/- at the time of booking and 50% of the tour booking cost before applying visa and full and final payment was to be deposited before 10 days to the departure, but except Rs.50,000/- the complainant has not deposited further amount as per terms and conditions of MOU. It is further averred that as per terms and conditions if due to some unforeseen circumstances, the complainant cannot avail the package, the cancellation charges and non refundable deposit of Rs.35,000/- per person was applicable.  It is further averred that since the complainant failed to arrange the visa as such the tour package was cancelled and the amount of Rs.15,000/- was refunded to the complainant as full and final settlement.  It is further averred that rejection of the visa was intimated to the SDIC and the SDIC applied for the reconsideration of visa rejection on their behalf.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied. Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1  to Ex.C-4 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/8 copies of the documents and closed evidence.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.             In the present case, all the facts are almost admitted. It is also admitted that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- in advance for the booking of a seat for 10 days European travel Package. It is also not in dispute that the said tour was cancelled due to rejection of visa of the complainant by the Embassy and refund of the amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant is also admitted (Though the OP refunded to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,500/- as per Ex.C-2). Now, the complainant has claimed refund of the remaining amount of Rs.29,500/- from the OP which was not refunded despite best efforts of the complainant on the ground that it is mentioned in the clause of cancellation in the Ex.OP-1 under the head Annexure “C” terms and conditions that if due to some unforeseen circumstances, you cannot avail of package, you should intimate your cancellation in writing, for which there will be cancellation charges applicable as below over and above the non-refundable deposit Rs.35,000/- per person. Further in  annexure “D” (Travel documents and visa) of Ex.OP-1 it is mentioned that granting or rejecting visas and immigration clearance is the sole prerogative of the concerned sovereign governments, the company shall neither be responsible in case of non-granting of such documents nor liable for any delay or other related act/omission or for any loss, expenses, damage or cost resulting from there.  Further the cost of processing visas is included in your Tour Price unless provided otherwise. The visa fee when prescribed includes the actual visa charge, cost of processing fee, the professional charges of the company and other overheads. Even if visas are rejected, the stipulated fees of the company shall be payable by the client. There would be no refund, if the client or any member of his party is unable to travel due to said reasons.   Further the OP has also produced Ex.OP-3 copy of letter  of the Visa Section Embassy of Switzerland dated 01.11.2018 wherein it was intimated to Sangrur District Industrial Chamber that kindly note that the reason for refusal is mentioned in the letter of refusal which has been handed over alongwith the passports. As per the rules and regulations, the Visa Section of this Embassy is neither supposed to provide any further detail on the refusal of a visa application nor reconsider the same. Please note, that each case is reviewed individually and no guarantee is given for the issuance of the visa. Kindly be informed that you have the right to appeal against the decision of this Embassy by filing written objection from Switzerland within 30 days upon receipt of the refusal notice. Again letter was sent for reconsideration of the rejected Visas, but of no avail.  The learned counsel for the OP has further contended vehemently that the amount has already been refunded to the complainant as per the terms and conditions and there is no amount due of the complainant against the OP as demanded by the complainant. To support this contention, the learned counsel for the OP has cited M/s. More Than Travel Pvt. Ltd. versus Vijay Kumar, First Appeal No.211 of 2022, decided on 28.02.2023 by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, wherein in the similar facts and circumstances of the case where the complaint of the complainant was allowed by the District Commission Barnala directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.29,500/- to the complainant and against that order the OP/company went in appeal before the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission and  the State Commission held that appellant/OP is not liable to refund the remaining amount of Rs.29,500/- to the complainant as per the terms and conditions in the MOU.  Since the facts are similar in the present case also, we find that in view of above said discussion and in the light of the above  order of the Hon’ble State Commission, this complaint deserves dismissal and accordingly we dismiss the complaint. However, the parties are left to bear their own cost.  

6.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

7.             A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        December 16, 2024.