Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/223/2019

Rajvir Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sai Global - Opp.Party(s)

Anirudh Gupta Adv. & Preeti Kalia Adv.

01 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	223 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	11.04.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	01.11.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Rajvir Kaur w/o Sh.Kawaljit Singh, R/o #521, Phase VI, SAS Nagar.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Sai Global, # 1, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh through its Proprietor Mr.Parul Sood

2]  Go Ibibo, having its Corporate Office at 19^th Floor, Tower A, B & C, Epitome Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, Phase III, Gurugram, Haryana 122002 through its Managing Director

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Anirudh Gupta, Counsel for the complainant

           None for OP No.1.

           Ms.Kusum Kaushik, Adv. proxy for Sh.Nitin Basin, Counsel for OP No.2.

 

 

PER B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         The complainant’s case is that she and her son intended to visit Dubai and as such hired services of OP No.1 to get the Visa formalities & other bookings done. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.12,400/- to OP No.1 to get Tourist Visa, whereupon OP No.1 entered into an agreement dated 19.1.2019 with complainant (Ann.C-1) and thereafter booked the package with OP No.2- Go Ibibo for 13.2.2019 to 17.2.2019.  The complainant paid Rs.59,259/- to OP No.2 including hotel charges as well as the Air ticket charges exclusive of other bookings i.e. sightseeing, Desert Safari etc. amounting to Rs.27,291/- (Ann.C-2 colly.). However, at the time of check in at the Airport while Airport Authorities verified the Visa of complainant and her son, it was found that date of birth of the complainant in the Visa is mentioned as 14.11.1955 instead of 14.11.1985, as a result, she was not allowed to board the scheduled flight on 13.2.2019, causing harassment, mental agony to the complainant apart from spoiling her holiday tour (Ann.C-3 & C-4).  It is stated that resultantly, the husband of the complainant, who already arrived Dubai, retuned to India on 15.2.2019 and incurred expense of Rs.14,603/-.  The matter was reported to OP No.1, who thereafter mailed the revised Visa showing correct details of complainant.  It is submitted that due to said deficient act & conduct of the OP No.1, the complainant and his family members had to suffer harassment, mental agony and financial loss.  

 

2]       The OP No.1 has filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the Dubai visit Visa is entirely the responsibility of GDRFA (The General Directorate of Residency and Foreigners Affairs Dubai), who has not been made party to the present complaint, and the mistake, if any is made in Dubai visa, then the appropriate authority for any legal action is GDRFA.  It is stated that the Visa was received by answering OP on 24.1.2019 and the same day it was sent to the complainant but the complainant instead of checking it, kept it as it is and contacted the answering OP No.1 only on 13.2.2019 and informed about the problem in the visa i.e. date of birth being wrongly mentioned. It is submitted that answering OP No.1 at its own expenses intimated the sponsor in Dubai, got resolved the issue next day itself i.e. 14.2.2019 and handed over to the complainant the correct visa without charging any fee, sponsor’s charges and authority fee (Ann.R-1).  It is pleaded that it is the carelessness of the complainant which had made her cancel her tour and there is no fault of OP No.1.  It is also pleaded that OP No.1 is a consultancy firm and not a Visa approval/issuance agency.  Denying all other allegations, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The OP No.2 has filed written version stating that the complainant has filed the present complaint being aggrieved by the error in her date of birth in the Visa, which occurred solely due to the mistake of OP No.1 and the same cannot be attributed to the answering OP.  It is stated that the complainant herself stated that she was not allowed to travel due to the mistake on the part of OP No.1, so there is no deficiency on the part of OP NO.2.  It is pleaded that the hotel booking made by the complainant were non-refundable and same was well within the knowledge of the complainant at the time of booking as well as post booking.  It is also pleaded that the complainant formed the Visa guaranteed by Op No.1 and thereafter booked the Hotel/Flight tickets from OP No.2, therefore, OP NO.2 stands discharged of its du ties and obligations qua the said booking, and thus the amount towards the booking cannot be refunded as answering OP has duly fulfilled its obligations towards the complainant and there was no error with regard to Hotel/Flight booking done by answering OP.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of the OP No.1 made in its written version.        

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the entire record including written arguments.

 

6]       The perusal of the record reveals that the complainant hired the services of OP No.1 to get Visa for travel to Dubai along with her son, but she could not undertake the said journey because her date of birth on the Visa was wrongly mentioned as 14.11.1955 instead of 14.11.1985. It is undisputed that the date of birth of the complainant on her visa was wrongly mentioned.

 

7]       It is observed that once the complainant has hired the skilled & professional services of the OP No.1 to get Visa for travel to Dubai, it was the responsibility of the OP No.1 to check her credentials well before & after issuance of the Visa.  The OP No.1 cannot escape from their liability and instead put blame on the complainant that she was supposed to check.  The OP No.1 cannot act like a mail box just to forward the application for visa etc., rather their services were hired for consideration being professional and in order to rule out any problem or difficulty in documentation.  We are of the opinion that there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1, who failed to get the Visa of the complainant with correct particulars, as a result her whole trip/travel to Dubai including hotel bookings etc. was spoiled, which certainly has caused her immense harassment, mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.

 

8]       Taking into consideration the discussion & findings aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been established. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to reimburse an amount of Rs.93,950/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.  The OP NO.1 is also directed to pay to the complainant compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental & physical harassment along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  However, the complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

01.11.2023                                                            Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER