DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/155/2022

Date of Institution : 16.02.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 02.09.2022

1. Amrik Singh son of S. Samund Singh. 

2. Daljit Kaur wife of S. Amrik Singh, residents of H. No. 85, Sarkaria Enclave, Ajnala Road, Amritsar. …Complainants

Versus

1. Sawera Travels Private Limited, 2230/1, Sawera Complex, Katra Baghian, Opposite Hotel Sawera Grand, Backside RS Towers, Amritsar through its Directors. 

2. Rajiv Suri, Manager, Sawera Travels Private Limited, 2230/1, Sawera Complex, Katra Baghian, Opposite Hotel Sawera Grand, Backside RS Towers, Amritsar.

3. Director/Chief Manager of Turkish Airlines, Booking Office Unit No. 1001/A, 10th Floor, Sector 28, Time Tower, MG Road, Gurgaon.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 and 13 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date

Present: Sh. Ajay Sharma Adv counsel for complainants.

Sh. Deepinder Singh Adv counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2.

Sh. Ajay Shanker Adv counsel for opposite party No. 3.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Sawera Travels Private Limited, Amritsar and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that complainant Hassandeep Kaur daughter of complainants married with Amandeep Singh who are living in Lisbon Portugal and son in law of complainant sent sponsorship letter for their visit to Lisbon. The complainants approached the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 for visa and ticket and opposite party No. 2 processed the on line application of the complainant and charged Rs. 4,000/- as processing fee in cash from the complainants. He further taken Rs. 10,800/- and Rs. 1,10,600/- through cheques which were cleared in their favour on 12.9.2016 for visa and tickets of the complainants for short time visa as economy tickets from New Delhi Airport to Lisbon Portugal and for return from Lisbon Portugal to New Delhi Airport and later on again charged Rs. 10,000/- for extension of tickets.  

4. It is further alleged that as this was short time visa for the complainants and was to be sanctioned by the embassy after interview of the complainants, as such the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 agreed that in case of refusal of visa to complainants they after deducting the amount or processing fee will refund back the remaining amount to the complainants. The tickets were booked from New Delhi to Lisbon from 8.10.2016 and for return from Lisbon to New Delhi for 6.11.2016 through Turkish Airlines as E-tickets. In this way Rs. 1,35,400/- was charged by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 from the complainants.

5. It is further alleged that the embassy refused the visa to the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 and 2 bound to refund back the amount received from the complainants after deducting the processing fee. The visa was refused vide letter dated 26.10.2016 but the opposite parties failed to refund the said amount to the complainants. The complainants through their counsel also served legal notice dated 6.4.2017 as well as reminder dated 12.5.2017 to the opposite parties but of no use which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,35,400/- after deducting the processing fee alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of loss till date of payment. 

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs 16,500/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

6. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainants have no cause of action to file the present complaint. The complaint is defective in nature and involves complex question of law and facts which is not triable in this Forum. 

7. On merits, the receiving of amount of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- is denied. The complainants had made the payment of the tickets in favour of Turkish Airlines and not the answering opposite parties and tickets were with the complainants of the said amount and if they could not travel the matter is between the said airlines and the complainants. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the answering opposite parties. Lastly, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint. 

8. The opposite party No. 3 also filed written statement by taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the opposite party is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the complaint and no specific allegations being made against the answering opposite party. The answering opposite party issued two non refundable flight tickets in the name of the complainants. The tickets were booked through Riya Travels. Since the said tickets were non refundable the complainants are not entitled to claim any refund towards the cancellation of the tickets. However, the complainants are entitled to claim Departure Airport Taxes from the ticketing Agent Riya Travels. The parties to the present case are governed by terms and conditions agreed between them at the time of booking and as enumerated in the terms and conditions in the booking forms. The answering opposite party acted as per terms and conditions as mentioned in the Booking Form. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. 

9. On merits, it is submitted that the complainants are not entitled to claim refund of the amount incurred towards booking of the flight tickets as the said tickets were non refundable in nature. However, complainants are entitled to claim Departure Airport Taxes from the ticket Agent Riya Travels. Lastly, the opposite party No. 3 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint against the opposite party No. 3 with costs.  

10. To prove their case the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of Amrik Singh Ex.CW-1/A, documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12, affidavit of Daljit Singh Ex.CW-2/A, certified copy of bank statement Ex.CW-13 and closed the evidence. 

11. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajiv Suri Ex.OP-1.2/1 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Huseyin Ozbek representative Ex.OP-3/1, copy of mail Ex.OP-3/2, copy of DD Ex.OP-3/3 and closed the evidence.  

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

13. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainants booked two tickets through the opposite party No. 3 and paid the amount of Rs. 10,800/- and Rs. 1,10,600/- through cheques on 12.9.2016. The opposite party No. 3 filed copy of demand draft of Rs. 1,22,168/- dated 3.9.2018 in favour of the complainant Amrik Singh to prove that they have already refund the amount of tickets to the complainant which is not denied by the complainants at any stage. 

14. To prove the payment of Rs. 10,800/- and Rs. 1,10,600/- the complainants tendered in evidence copy of bank statement of Amrik Singh complainant No. 1 and in this statement on 12.9.2016 the complainant paid the amount of Rs. 10,800/- and Rs. 1,10,600/- in favour of opposite party No. 1 totaling Rs. 1,21,400/-. The opposite parties sent this amount to the opposite party No. 3 to book the tickets of complainants and now the opposite party No. 3 refunded the amount of Rs. 1,22,168/- to the complainant No. 1 which fact is also not denied by the complainants. 

15. In the complaint the complainants also alleged that they have paid Rs. 4,000/- in cash as processing fee and Rs. 10,000/- in cash for extension of tickets but to prove these payments they have not filed any document. The opposite parties also denied these payments. In this way, the complainants failed to prove on the file that they have made payment of Rs. 14,000/- in cash to the opposite parties. 

16. In view of the above discussion, as the opposite party No. 3 already refunded the amount of the complainants to them, so there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. So, there is no merit in present complaint and same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        2nd Day of September 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member