State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Director,Cox & Kings (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs Dr. Uday Ramchandra Naik on 2 February, 2015
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH
NAGPUR
First Appeal No. A/09/563
(Arisen out of Order Dated 25/06/2009 in Case No. CC/08/310 of District Akola)
1. DIRECTOR,COX & KINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,
TUMAR MORISON BUILDING, 16, BACK STREET
FORT, MUMBAI-400023
2. NITIN THOMAS,
SALES OFFICER/REPRESENTATIVE, COX &
KINGS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., UG 18, PUSHPAKUNJ,
CENTRAL BAZZAR ROAD, RAMDASPETH,
NAGPUR.
NAGPUR.
MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. DR. UDAY RAMCHANDRA NAIK
R/O. ALASHI PLOT AKOLA, TAHSIL AND
DISTRICT. AKOLA.
2. SOU. BHAWNA UDAY NAIK
R/O. ALASHI PLOT AKOLA, TAHSIL AND
DISTRICT AKOLA.
AKOLA
MAHARASHTRA. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. B.A.Shaikh PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'ABLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal MEMBER
For the Adv. Mr. Ashirgade
Appellant:
For the Adv. Mr. Shekhani
Respondent:
ORDER
(Passed On 02/02/2015) Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon'ble Member
1. This appeal challenges the order dated 25/6/2009, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Akola, partly allowing the Consumer complaint bearing No. 310 of 2008. The Forum thereby directed the OP Nos. 1 and 2/appellants herein to refund an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainants which the OP had deducted as cancellation charges, and 2 Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 500/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and cost of proceedings respectively.
2. Respondent No. 1, Dr. Uday Ramchandra Naik and respondent No. 2 Smt. Bhawana Uday Naik to be referred as complainant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and appellant No. 1 Director Cox and Kings (India) Private Ltd. Mumbai and appellant No. 2 Nitin Thomas representative Cox and Kings (India) Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur to be referred as OP Nos. 1 and 2 respectively for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts as laid down by the complainants in their complaint are as follows.
The Ops had floated tour under the style and name as " Duniya Dekho, European Discovery Cash back Offer" on 18/01/2008, in response to which the complainants on 27/01/2008 booked the tour for two people by paying booking amount of Rs. 40,000/- at the rate of 20,000/- each. The said tour was to commence from 2/5/2008. The complainants on 14/2/2008 paid the balance amount of Rs. 2,76,148/- by Demand Draf (DD) bearing No. 0456976 drawn on the Akola Janata Commercial Co-Op Bank, Akola. It is the contention of the complainant that the Ops had undertaken to arrange for the Visa for the complete tour programme and they had also accepted the required fee and charges from the complainants in advance. The complainants also submitted the necessary documents in respect of the same. The Ops also informed the complainants that their booking for the aforesaid tour was also confirmed. However the Ops informed the complainants on 24/04/2008 by email that the complainants cannot undertake the Europe tour as the 3 Visa for the same could not be arranged. It is further contended by the complainants that in spite of they submitting the necessary documents the OP failed to arrange for the Visa as undertaken by them. The Ops by email dated 19/9/2008, informed the complainants that the amount refundable in the event of cancellation of tour would be subject to deduction of Rs. 50,000/- per person as per company's cancellation Policy. Alleging unfair trade practice, the complainants filed a consumer complaint alleging that the Ops had accepted non refundable deposit of Rs. 20,000/- per person at the time of booking of the tour and had offered to refund the booking amount afer deducting Rs. 50,000/- per person. The complainants by the aforesaid consumer complaint sought for refund of Rs. 3,16,148/- being the amount accepted by the OP and Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per person and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of proceedings.
4. The Ops resisted the complaint by filing written version and denied all the adverse allegations of the complainants. The Op though admitted that the complainants booked the tour European Discovery and they had accepted Rs. 3,16,148/- towards booking charges for two persons inclusive Rs. 20,000/- non refundable deposit per person. The Ops specifically submitted that they had provided list of documents to the complainants which they were required to submit to the consulate for obtaining Visa. The complainants however failed to submit the documents within stipulated time. It was only in the month of April 2008 that the complainant submitted the documents including the passports. The said passports were issued on 31/03/2008. The UK consulate had 4 rejected the Visa due to want of sufficient documents. The OP further submitted that they are only the tour operators and facilitates the booking of tour services and helps in obtaining the Visa from the respective consulates by providing proper guidance in respect of procedures and steps to be taken for obtaining the Visa. Granting or rejecting of Visa is the sole prerogative of the respective consulates for which the Ops cannot be held responsible. The Ops had offered alternate tour programmes to the complainant to show their bona fide. They had rightly deducted Rs. 50,000/- per person as cancellation charges as the cancellation was made within ' Clear 15 to 02 working days prior to the date of departure of the tour.' Therefore the Ops denied have rendering any deficiency in service or adopting unfair trade practice and therefore seeking for dismissal of the complaint being frivolous.
5. The Forum afer hearing both the sides and perusing the documents on record, partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid. The Forum has observed that the Ops have adopted unfair trade practice as they accepted the amount towards the tour in advance. Undisputedly Visa is required prior to the tour being undertaken and in the event of Visa being rejected for whatever reason, any deduction by way of cancellation charges would not be proper. Therefore allowed the complaint as aforesaid.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Ops, Director and representative of Cox and Kings (India) Pvt. Ltd. have preferred this appeal.
7. We heard counsel for both the sides and perused the written notes of 5 arguments, copy of complaint, written version and documents filed on record by both the parties. On perusal of the copy of the passport of the complainant, it reflects that the same were issued on 31/03/2008. We also perused the copy of the receipt dated 27/1/2008 and copy of the DD dated 14/02/2008 for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- and 2,76,148/- respectively. The only inference that can be drawn from the above mentioned documents is that the complainant was not having valid passport at the time of booking of the tour. It is also not acceptable that a person who is so highly qualified as the complainant would not know that passport would be required to undertake overseas tour. Undisputedly the complainants were not having valid passport at the time of booking the tour. The Ops cannot be held responsible for rejection of Visa. Although the Ops renders services and guidance to procure the Visa. They cannot be held responsible for non submission of proper documents by no stretch of imagination. However the Ops have not brought any evidence on record to show that under which cancellation policy have they deducted Rs. 50,000/- per person as cancellation charges. Perusal of Booking Form- 2008 duly filled by the complainant reflects " Kindly booked me/ us as per the details filled on this form. I am forwarding the sum of Rs. 20,000/- per person as non refundable interest free deposit (listed below) which shall be forfeited in the event of cancellation of the tour by me/us being unable to travel due to any reason whatsoever and shall not dispute the forfeiture." Therefore in our opinion, the Ops would be entitled to deduct Rs. 20,000/- the non refundable deposit in the event of cancellation. Therefore the Forum partly allowing the complaint and directing refund 6 of Rs. 50,000/- per person cannot sustain in law being unjust and improper. The appeal therefore deserves to be partly allowed. In the result, we pass the following order.
ORDER I. Appeal is partly allowed.
II. The impugned order is modified and substituted as under.
The appellants/original O.P.s shall refund an amount of Rs. 30,000/- per person i.e. Rs. 60,000/- to the complainants/respondent herein and further to pay them compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/-. They shall pay said amounts to complainants/respondents herein with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. from 17/12/2008 till realization.
I. No order as to costs in appeal.
II. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of costs.
[HON'ABLE MR. B.A.Shaikh] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal] MEMBER ph