State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tolu Tours Pvt Ltd & Others vs Mrs Harashada Nilesh Kothari & Others on 27 August, 2021
1 [A/2020/411]
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT PUNE
APPEAL NO. A/2020/411
1. TOLU TOURS PVT. LTD.
Head Office at - Buty Building,
1st floor, Mount Road, Sadar,
Nagpur - 440001
2. TOLU TOURS PVT. LTD.
Address : Kamalashri, Basement,
Opposite Devi Ahilya Temple,
Near Aanand Ashram, Dhantoli,
Nagpur - 440012 ...... Appellants
Vs.
1. Mrs. Harshada Nilesh Kothari
2. Mr. Nilesh Ashok Kothari
Both R/at - Flat No. 03,
Bhagya Vihar Building,
Bibwewadi-Knodhwa Road,
Bibwewadi, Pune - 411037 ...... Respondents
BEFORE: Hon'ble Justice Pukhraj R. Bora, President
Hon'ble Dr. S. K. Kakade, Member
For the Appellant : AdvocateShri. Divyanshu Athalye
For the Respondents : In Person
ORDER
Per Dr. S. K. Kakade, Member [1] Being aggrieved by the order dated 30/01/2020 in consumer complaint no. CC/2015/924 passed by learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pune partly allowing the complaint; the present appeal has been preferred by the original opponents. The facts necessary 2 [A/2020/411] for deciding theappeal can be stated as under :-
[2] The Respondents/original complainants booked the Europe Tour with the Appellants/original opponents for visiting cities of Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Salzburg and Innsbruck and the duration of the tour was for 10 nights and 11 days starting from 23/05/2015 to 02/06/2015. For the said tour per person expenditure was decided as Rs. 1,49,000/- and accordingly the respondents had paid total amount of Rs. 2,98,000/- to the Appellant towards the tour booking of respondent no.1 and 2. On 06/05/2015, the Appellants had filed Visa application for all the members of the group with the Austrian Embassy and the Austrian Embassy granted and dispatched the Visas of 8 persons from the group and the visas of respondent nos. 1 and 2 were not issued by the Embassy.The appellants did not help the respondents in time for getting visa, so could not travel on tour as planned. Hence, respondents could not enjoy the tour along with other tour members. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/original opponents, the respondents/original complainant filed consumer complaint no. CC/2015/924 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pune.
[3] The Appellants/the original opponents resisted the complaint by filing written version. The original opponents have stated that, the original complainant no. 2 failed to attend the interview scheduled by the Embassy on 22/05/2015; hence visas of respondent nos. 1 and 2 were not issued by the Embassy and the complainants could not attend the tour. Therefore,
3 [A/2020/411] the opponents refunded amount of Rs. 1,71,638/- to the complainants. After considering rival contentions of the parties, the District Commission, Pune partly allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the original opponent has preferred this appeal [4] It is admitted fact that the Respondents/original complainants had booked the Europe Tour with the Appellants/original opponents for visiting cities of Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Salzburg and Innsbruck and the duration of the tour was for 10 nights and 11 days starting from 23/05/2015 to 02/06/2015. For the said tour per person expenses amount was decided as Rs. 1,49,000/- and accordingly the respondents/original complainants had paid total amount of Rs. 2,98,000/- to the Appellant towards the tour booking of respondent no.1 and 2. It is the contention of the respondents that, as informed by the appellants/original opponents they approached Austrian Embassy on 22/05/2015, but nobody entertained them, and they did not receive their visa; hence they could not attend and enjoy the Europe tour.
[5]The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants/original opponent submitted that, they had secured the flight and Hotel (Accommodation) bookings for the group along with the respondents and all the group members were given a Euro Rail Pass for the communication during the tour. On 06/05/2015, the Appellants had filed Visa application for all the members of the group with the Austrian Embassy and the Austrian Embassy granted and dispatched the Visas of 8 persons from the group and the visas of respondent nos. 1 and 2 were not issued by the Embassy.
4 [A/2020/411] Thereafter on 21/05/2016 through e-mail appellants urged the Austrian Embassy to grant visas by hand to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and arranged travel of respondent no. 2 from Delhi to Mumbai. However, respondent no. 2 failed to attend the interview scheduled by the Embassy, hence visas of respondent nos. 1 and 2 were not issued by the Embassy. On 22/05/2015, the Embassy as per clause 2 of the Article of Regulation (EV) No. 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of Council of 13th July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas issued a letter to respondents nos. 1 and 2 informing them that, as they have failed to remain present for an interview scheduled on 22nd May, they have not been granted visa on 22nd May 2015.
[6] After perusal of the record, particularly the electronic communication, it is transpired that the scheduled date of the interview of respondent nos. 1 and 2 was 27th May 2015 and the tour was commenced from 23/05/2015. On 21/05/2015, the appellants through e-mail requested the Austrian Embassy to prepone theinterview of the respondents. As per information of the appellants, respondents attended the Austrian Embassy at New Delhi, but according to the respondents they did not receive any response from Embassy office, and they did not get any help from the appellants. The Appellants failed to produce any record to show that on 22/05/2015, they took efforts for getting visas of respondents. The respondents waited outside the office of Austrian Embassy from 9 a.m. till 3 p.m., tried to communicate with the appellants but in vain; and nobody from the appellants were available to help them at Embassy. Additionally, also they collected visas of 5 [A/2020/411] the other group members on the same day from the embassy, but they did not get their visa and therefore they could not attend and enjoy the Europe tour. The appellants have taken responsibility of making all the arrangements for getting visa to the respondents and that they failed to provide these services to the respondents. This act of the opponents amounts to deficiency in service.
[7] We find that the District Commission has rightly granted remaining amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. and amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondents. We find that the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pune is just, legal and reasonable and hence there is nothing on record so as to interfere in the order under appeal.
In view of answers of Point No.1 and 2 the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the following order :-
ORDER Appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. Pronounced on 27thAugust 2021 [Justice Pukhraj R. Bora] President
6 [A/2020/411] [Dr. S. K. Kakade] Member