Sr  Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

P    Pesident

1.       The complainant Kum S.Dheergha Lakshmi has filed this complaint against the opposite party Managing Director M/S S.B. International Tours and Travels, Mysuru praying to direct the opposite party to  compensate the loss of Rs. 63,991/-and the damages of Rs. 40,000/-, total Rs. 1,13,991/- to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and deficiency of services committed by opposite party.

2. The brief facts are that:-

The opposite party running the M/S S.B. international tours and travels agency by providing services to the consumers by booking the tickets to various destinations and booking visa to the customers. The complainant visited office of the opposite party to get the tourist visa and requested the opposite party for the same, so opposite party asked the complainant to produce all the necessary documents believing the words of opposite party. The complainant had produced all the documents to the opposite party and also paid Rs.4,500/- to opposite party, and opposite party promised to get the visa believing the opposite party the complainant booked air ticket and hotel accommodation and spent money thereon but on the fixed date the opposite party failed to provide the tourist visa and thereby opposite party caused deficiency in service, as such the complainant cancelled air tickets and hotel accommodation booked earlier and she booked the air tickets again for the next schedule flight and spent Rs.18,005/-for booking air tickets and Rs.30,000/- for accommodation and travelled to Hakone, instead of direct travel to the Japan and had suffered loss of Rs.2,750/- for air tickets and Rs.15,000/- for accommodation and on the date of26.03.2018 she further incurred loss of Rs.2,370/- for the air tickets and Rs.10,000/- for theaccommodation due to failure to provide visa on time to her by opposite party and thereby she totally incurred loss of Rs.63,961/- because of in sufficient service by opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.        After registration of this complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to opposite party in response to notice, opposite party appeared before this commission and has filed written version denying all the averments made in the complaint except. Admitting that the opposite party is travel agent and provides services of ticket booking to various destination and booking for visa and further admitted that the complainant had sought the mediation of getting tourist visa from the embassy of Japan during the month of march 2018 as she said to have planned to visit Japan, on a tourist visa. Further opposite party has collected the documents such as tickets booked to and fro and hotel accommodation booked and forwarded to the embassy office at Bangalore. The complainant herself brought the pre-booked travelling tickets and the details of hotel booking, and further contended that the complainant has paid the required visa fee and nothing beyond. Further contended that the entire activity of the issuance of visa and time line is dependent on the subjective satisfaction of the embassy of Japan, as per their visa issuance rules and regulations. Nothing is in the hands of the opposite party and no role to play. Except for submission of documents. The question of believing the opposite party that the visa will be issued on date is all false. Further, the booking of tickets and accommodation of bookings are the pre-requisite of the issuance of tourist visa without the details of the ticket and accommodation bookings, no visa will be issued. The complainant even before coming to the opposite party had already booked travelling tickets and accommodation. Further the opposite party has not booked any tickets, nor the accommodation. The question of giving assurance or commitment, on the things of the getting visa from embassy of Japan, are beyond the control of the opposite party when the opposite party is not empowered to issue visa, the question of deficiency of service does not arise at all. Therefore the complainant alleged suffering from mental agony is concocted story. The issuance of visa in the hands of the embassy of the Japan the opposite party does not have any role to play in the regard. The complainant making unnecessary allegation has filed this complaint for unlawful again. Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The complainant has filed her affidavit by way of examination in chief  and the same was taken as P.W.1 and got marked Exhibit P.1 to P.8.  On the other hand opposite party has also filed its affidavit, but not got marked any documents.

5.  We have heard the arguments of both sides.    

6. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves that the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thereby she is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

7.     Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

     Point No.1 :- In the Negative

     Point No.2:-As per final order for   the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.      Point No.1:- It is not in dispute that the opposite party is traveling agent providing services to his customers by booking the tickets to various destinations and to facilitate in getting visa. It is also not in dispute that the complainant visited the office of the opposite party to get the tourist visa from opposite party and produced all the necessary documents to the opposite party in turn opposite party forwarded the same to Japan embassy to get the visa for the complainant as she had planned to visit the Japan on tourist visa.

9.      It is the case of complainant that on the promise made by the opposite party to get the visa on time she booked air ticket to travel to Japan and accommodation but the opposite party failed to provide visa on time as agreed by it. Therefore she had cancelled her air tickets and accommodation, she again paid additional sum of Rs.18,005/-towards air tickets and Rs.30,000/-towards accommodation and incurred expenditure of Rs. 18,005/- towards air tickets and Rs.30,000/-towards accommodation and went to Hakone and sustained loss of Rs.2,750/-for air tickets and Rs.15,000/- for accommodation and further incurred loss of Rs.2,370/-for air tickets to travel to Takayama and Rs.10,000/-for accommodation as she missed direct flight to Japan. But the contention of the complainant that on the promise made by the opposite party  to provide tourist visa  she booked the air tickets and accommodation has been totally denied by opposite party. The opposite party specifically contended that before coming to the opposite party office the complainant already booked air tickets and accommodation. Pre booking of air tickets and accommodation is pre–requisite to get the tourist visa and opposite party specifically contended that it had obtained only the document from the complainant to facilitate, to get tourist visa to the complainant and forwarded the same to Japan embassy office at Bangaluru. But the opposite party has not at all booked air tickets and accommodation to complainant and further contended that the issuance of visa is in the hands of embassy of Japan the opposite party has no role to play in this regard except submitting the documents. The opposite party is not issuing authority of visa it is for the embassy of Japan to issue visa after verifying documents submitted for visa and as per rules and regulations of Japan embassy the visa will be issued and it will take its own time, no timeline will be fixed for issuance of visa by Japan embassy. But as per the regular course of business practice the opposite party under takes to facilitate to provide visa to the tourists who travel abroad. But no timeline fixed for issuance of visa by embassy of any country including the Japan embassy and it is purely on the basis of rules and regulations and after scrutiny of documents the embassy of concerned country will issue the visa. The opposite party has no role to play in this regard. Therefore delay has been caused for issuance of visa to complainant from the office of Japan embassy. For which the opposite party was not responsible. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in getting the visa issued in favour of the complainant from embassy of Japan at Bangaluru. Under such circumstance cancelling the air tickets and  booked accommodation and booking of the same  again by the complainant and  incurred loss by the complainant no way concerned to opposite party. The documents produced by complainant exhibits  P1 to P8 clearly shows that booking air tickets to  travel to naka-gun Japan, the check in date was 25.03.2018 check out was date 26.03.2018 and the booking of air tickets to travel to Takayama Japan check in date was 26.03.2018, check out date was 27.03.2018 and air tickets to travel to Shinjuku-ku Japan check in date was 23.03.2018 check out date was  25.03.2018 and the email corresponds made with the opposite party to get the  tourist visa and legal notice issued by complainant to opposite party clearly depicts that the complainant met the opposite party to get the tourist visa to travel to Japan and opposite party submitted all the documents to embassy of Japan to get the visa in favour of the complainant. But the opposite party has no role to play in issuance of visa by embassy of Japan and it only  for embassy of Japan to issue tourist visa to the tourist after verifying the documents as per  rules and regulations of Embassy of Japan which caused delay in issuance of tourist visa to complainant therefore the alleged loss sustained by the complainant for cancelling air tickets and accommodations and re booking of air tickets and accommodations is no way concerned to opposite party. And the opposite party is not at all responsible for alleged loss said to  have been sustained by the complainant and in view of issuance of tourist visa  is in the hands of Embassy of Japan and in this regard ,the opposite party has no role to play  in such an event it cannot be said that opposite party has committed deficiency in service as alleged  by the complainant. Therefore we do not find any merits in the case and we are of the opinion that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. Therefore, we answer point No.1 in the negative.

10. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

The complaint filed by complainant is dismissed.

    No order as to costs

Furnish the copy of order to both the parties at free of cost.