IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Date of filing : 27/11/2017
Date of order : 28.03.2023
PRESENT:
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri. V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Member
C.C.No.472/2017
COMPLAINANTS
1) R.Krishnamoorthy, S/o.T.V.Rama Iyer, 9/26, Gangothri, Society Road, Kunduvelil Lane, Maradu Post, Kochi-682 304.
2) R.Hemavathy, W/o.R.Krishnamoorthi, 9/26, Gangothri, Society Road, Kunduvelil Lane, Maradu Post, Kochi-682 304.
(By Adv.T.J.Lakhmanan, Mega Arcade, Power House Road, Cochin- 18)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Indian Wings Holidays, GI-B, Ground Floor, Netage Arcade, Church Landing Road, Pallimukku, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 016. Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.Yugesh Xavier.
(o.p rep. by Adv.P.Rajeeve, Adv.K.V.Jayadeep Menon, Kolatheri Shopping Complex, Chittoor Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 016)
F I N A L O R D E R
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
1) A brief history of the complaint is as stated below:
The complainants are decided to go for a full package tour to Singapore and Malaysia and the opposite party assured tour packages which includes one month Malaysian E-visa, one month Singapore visa, To and fro flight tickets to both the countries along with food and accommodation. For that purpose the complainant paid Rs.1,26,000/- to the opposite party and the opposite party issued receipt for the tour (from 25.01.2017 to 31.01.2017). Complainants had submitted all the required documents as demanded by the opposite party. On 25.01.2017 when the complainants were ready with their baggage to leave for airport they are informed that the visa of the first complainant is not cleared and directed the 1st complainant to appear for an interview at Chennai on 27.01.2017. The complainants were really shocked by this last minute message.
On 27.01.2017 the 1st complainant sent an e-mail to the opposite party and expressed his grievances. On the very same day the opposite party sent a reply mail to the 1st complainant and informed him to appear for an interview in Chennai on 27.01.2017 at 10 a.m. The 1st complainant several time approached the opposite party with the grievances and demanded to refund the amount paid to the opposite party. But the opposite part is not ready to refund the amount collected from the complainants. In the meantime, the opposite party made an assurance to the complainant that they will be taken to the next tour packages without any additional cost. But the opposite party not fulfilled this assurance.
Since the complainants are senior citizens and since the 1st complainant is deprived from the tour package the 2nd complainant also not able to move with the tour package. The complainants suffered great mental agony, pain and other hardships due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party was not ready to arrange any alternate tour package to the complainant at free of cost and not even ready to refund the amount of Rs.1,26,000/- to the complainants. This action of the opposite party is unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking orders directing the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- to the complainants with interest at 12% p.a from the date of complaint till the date of realization and to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants towards the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of proceedings of Rs.10,000/-.
2) Notice
Notice was issued to the opposite party from this Commission on 08.12.2017 and the opposite party appeared and filed their version.
3) Version of the opposite party
The present complaint is maintainable either in law or on facts. There is no real cause of action to institute any legal proceedings against the opposite party.
It is true that the 1st complainant and his wife the 2nd complainant had booked for a package trip towards Malaysia and Singapore and receiving an advance of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) on 23.12.2016 towards the package cost and the balance Rs.1,06,000/- (Rupees One lakh and Six Thousand only) on 12.01.2017. There was altogether 26 members in the package including the complainants. The package tour was scheduled to 25.01.2017 to 31.01.2017 and all the travel arrangements including flight tickets, hotel accommodation with food, site seeing arrangements etc were made by the opposite party.
The visa application were submitted for all the 26 members on 31.12.2016 itself through the Chennai agent and Singapore visa were issued to all without any personal interview. Subsequently, the visa applications for Malaysia for the 26 members were also submitted through the very same agency ‘TRAVEGO’ who are doing this service for the opposite party for the last more than 3 years. But on 21.01.2017 the opposite party had received a call from the agent that persons are directed to appear for personal interview at the Malaysian consulate Chennai and the personal interview was scheduled on 23.01.2017. Immediately, they contacted the 13 members of the team and send them for interview at the expenses of the opposite party. The name of Krishnamoorthy was not in the list and it was believed that he has got the visa along with others who got visa without interview. The 13 persons attended the personal interview also got Malaysian visa without any problem. But to the greater surprise on 25.01.2017, at 12.45 pm the opposite party received an intimation from his Chennai agent that Sri.Krishnamoorty has to appear for personal interview at the Malaysian Consulate at Chennai on 27.01.2017. This was informed to the 1st complainant then and there. Since the travel date was on 25.01.2017 night, the opposite party requested the consulate officials directly and through their Chennai agent for his visa, they were not ready to issue the same without personal interview. Though the opposite party requested the 2nd complainant to start with the team and the 1st complainant to join with them from Singapore, they were not amenable for that. Then the opposite party requested them to join with the team at Singapore at their cost but which was also not acceptable to the complainants.
The visa application for all the 26 members including the complainants in the package were submitted by the opposite party on 31.12.2016 itself, even much before getting the package cost.
The opposite party has done everything for all the 26 members in the package and there is no deficiency of service or short fall happened from their side. No irresponsible action was happened from the part of the opposite party and the personal interview was fixed by the Malaysian Consulate at Chennai on which the opposite party have no control at all. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party.
The opposite party has got no control over the Malaysian Consulate. Issue and refusal of visa is at their discretion.
The opposite party has argued that the tour programme was conducted strictly as per the package itinerary. He was called for a personal interview by the Malaysian Consulate not because of any fault or deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party.
No deficiency of service can be attributed from the part of the opposite party at the time of calling the 1st complainant for his personal interview after the scheduled date of tour. The complainants are not entitled to get any relief claimed in the complaint since there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party.
4) Evidence
Evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which were marked as ExbtA1 to A4. No oral evidence from the side of the complainant.
Opposite party has no oral or documentary evidence.
Heard.
5) The main points for consideration in this case are as follows:
1) Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2) If so, reliefs and costs?
6) We have verified the version filed by the opposite party and the documents filed from the side of the complainants. Exbt.A1 is the copy of the receipt No.2221 dated 23.12.2016 for Rs.20,000/- issued by the opposite party. Exbt.A2 is also a copy of the receipt dated 12.01.2017 for Rs.106000/- issued by the opposite party. Exbt.A3 is a copy of e-mail dated 27.01.2017 sent by the complainant to the opposite party. As per Exbt.A3 it is cleared that the complainant has got an intimation from the office of the opposite party at 4.23 pm. ( ie., hours before the departure of the flight) regarding the non clearance of Malaysian visa. Exbt.A4 is also a copy of the e-mail dated 27.01.2017 sent by the opposite party to the complainant apologizing for the inconvenience caused by the complainant in the tour progamme due to the non clearance of the visa of the complainant.
The case of the complainant is that the complainants opted the tour package of the opposite party and had paid an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- for the tour. Unfortunately, at the time of commencement of the tour programme, the opposite party informed the complainant that the visa of the 1st complainant is not cleared and directed the 1st complainant to appear for an interview at Chennai on 27.01.2017. The complainant states that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
The opposite party in their version submits that there is no deficiency in service from their part. The opposite party contented that the visa application for the 26 members are submitted through their agent ‘TRAVEGO’ on 31.12.216 itself even much before the package cost. The opposite party also contended that the personal interview was fixed by the Consulate on which the opposite party had no control at all. The refusal of visa is the discretion of the Malaysian Consulate and there is no fault or deficiency of service from their part.
It is admitted by the opposite party that the 1st complainant and his wife had booked for a package trip to Singapore and Malaysia and had paid an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- (Rupees One lakh Twenty Six thousand only) to the opposite party. The opposite party had issued receipts for the same. Meanwhile on 25.01.2017, the 1st complainant received an information from the opposite party that visa of the 1st complainant regarding Malaysian visa is not cleared and the complainant is directed to appear for an interview at Chennai. Immediately the complainant expressed his disappointment and requested to return the passport of the complainant immediately through Exbt.A3 e-mail. When the complainant contacted the opposite party, they informed that the rejection of the complainant’s visa was not due to the mistake of their part but due to some technical problems from the part of Malaysian Consulate by their Chennai agent.
In the instant case, the tour programme was scheduled from 25.01.2017 to 31.01.2017. The complainant has got the information regarding the rejection of the Malaysian visa from the opposite party only in the last moment only. ie., on 25.01.2017 which was the scheduled date of start of journey.
As per the information from the opposite party, the 1st complainant is directed to appear for a personal interview at Chennai on 27.01.2017 at 10.00 am. That was not practicable as far as a senior citizen is concerned. Moreover, providing such a last minute information to the complainant at the very late stage of the tour, ie. at the proposed date of start of journey itself is severe deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party.
Since the complainants are senior citizens and since the 1st complainant cannot join the trip due to the non-clearance of visa by the opposite party, the 1st complainant deprived from the tour package and the 2nd complainant also not able to move with the tour programme. The opposite party states in their version that the opposite got information through its agent from the Consulate Chennai on 25.01.2017 at 12.45 noon that the 1st complainant has to appear on 27.01.2017 for personal interview and the same was communicated to the complainant immediately over phone.
But the opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove this fact that the matter regarding personal interview was immediately communicated to the complainant.
The opposite party’s contention is that the complainant is called for a personal interview at Chennai by the Malaysian Consulate not because any fault or deficiency of service from their part.
The tour of the complainants was cancelled due to the rejection of the Malaysian visa of the 1st complainant at the last minute. It is admitted by the opposite party that due to the non issuance of visa by Malaysian Consulate the 1st complainant could not participate in the tour package as expected. The complainant states that he had produced all documents which are demanded by the opposite party for obtaining the visa. The opposite party in their version states that they had submitted the visa applications for all the 26 members on 31.12.2016 itself. Though the opposite party vehemently contented that there is no delay in submitting application to the agency ‘TRAVEGO’ they did not adduce any evidence to show the date on which they received the documents from the complainant and the date on which they had submitted the application to the agent. On an evaluation of evidence we can see that the opposite party had received an amount of 1,26,000/- on 12.01.2017. The opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not providing proper service to the complainant. Hence the complainants cannot participate the tour programme. The opposite party is not ready to refund the amount of Rs.1,26,000/- to the complainants. It is also deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. The complainant had to suffer huge mental agony, pain and other hardships due to the deficient act of the opposite party.
Hence the 1st and 2nd issues are proved in favour of the complainant and we hereby pass the following orders.
1) The opposite party shall refund an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- to the complainant since the complainants cannot participate in the tour due to the deficient action of the opposite party.
2) The opposite party shall also pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainants for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party and also for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainants.
3) We direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The above order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered as per (1) and (2) above shall attract interest at 6% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28th day of March 2023.
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainants Exhibits
Opposite party’s Exhibits : Nil
C.C.No.472/17
order dated 28.03.2023
C.C.No.104/2020
Order dated
