State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deepa Veer Ganjoo vs Hanvey India Tours & Traveels on 24 January, 2020
CC/14/209 1/10
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
COMPLAINT CASE NO. CC/14/209
1. DEEPA VEER GANJOO,
2. TWISHA GANJOO
3. SNEH GANJOO,
Through her mother, Complainant no.1
All three having address at:
806/B Wing, Sminu Tower,
Gymkhana Road, Borivali (W), ...........Complainant(s)
Nr.MCF Club, Mumbai 400 092.
Versus
HARVEY INDIA TOURS & TRAVELS
PRIVATE LIMITED,
Having address at:
Carol Mansion, Ground Floor,
Sitladevi Temple Road, Next to Union Bank,
Mahim, Mumbai 400 016. .........Opponent(s)
BEFORE:
Mr.P.B. Joshi - Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. D.R. Shirasao - Judicial Member
For the Advocate Mr.Gautam Mehta
Complainant(s):
For the
Advocate Mr.S. Hussain
Opponent(s):
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr.D.R. Shirasao - Judicial Member:
(1) Complainants have filed this consumer complaint for getting damages and compensation on account of deficiency in service given by opponent to them.
CC/14/209 2/10(2) Brief facts of the case are as under:
Complainant no.2, daughter of complainant no.1 and sister of complainant no.3 was studying in Canada since about August, 2012 and completed her graduation in May, 2013. The convocation ceremony of complainant no.2. was scheduled and fixed on 14/05/2013 at Ottawa. The parents of complainant no.2 were invited for that convocation ceremony. Hence, complainant nos.1 and 3 decided to attend the convocation ceremony to be organized on 14/05/2013 in Ottawa. Complainants decided and planned to enjoy a short holiday trip of eleven days before the convocation ceremony. They decided to arrange this trip to some parts of Canadian Rockies situated on Western Coast of Canada. Hence, complainant no.1 approached to opponent for availing services for booking their tickets from Mumbai to Vancouver and from Ottawa to Mumbai and also for processing applications of complainant nos.1 and 3 for getting visa and also for getting travel insurance during that period. Accordingly opponent booked air-tickets of complainant nos.1 and 3 dated 24th April, 2013 from Mumbai to Vancouver. Complainant no.2 had also booked ticket from opponent dated 20/05/2013 from Ottawa to Mumbai for coming along with complainant nos.1 and 3. As per e-mail given by opponent, complainant nos.1 had submitted all the documents to opponent no.1 for obtaining Canadian Visa. It is the contention of complainants that till 24th April, 2013, the date of departure, they had not received visas for proceeding to Canada and hence, they required to cancel their tickets for going to Vancouver from Mumbai on 24/04/2013. It is their contention that before proceeding to Canada on 22/04/2013 one Gurpreet Kaur, Assistant Manager of Corporate Sales and Groups of the opponent CC/14/209 3/10 addressed an e-mail to Complainant no.1 for getting details for getting visa of complainant nos.1 and 3. Thereupon, complainant no.1 had sent e-mail to them and informed that uptill now they have not received visa and if they will not receive visa till 24/04/2013 then they will have to cancel the travel. It is the contention of complainants that as they had not received their visa till 24/04/2013 they had taken steps for getting the same. For that purpose they had contacted Alka Bhalla and Parth to verify the situation as they are resident of Delhi. It is the contention of complainants that at that time for the first time they learnt that the opponent has moved their application for getting visa at Canadian Embassy situated at Delhi and not at Mumbai. On enquiry they informed complainants that further documents are required for processing their visa application and without getting those documents visa cannot be provided to complainants. It is the contention of complainants that the letter in that respect was given by the Embassy and the same was collected by another Agent of opponent at Delhi. However, opponent had not informed about the same to complainants and because of which complainants could not give the necessary documents. It is the contention of complainants that as per query made by the Canadian Embassy as complainant no.1 was travelling without her husband, along with her daughter, the consent in that respect was required to be given by her husband. Complainant no.1 had immediately given additional documents and sent to Alka Bhalla and had also given authority letter to her to collect visa and passport from Canadian Embassy. It is the contention of complainants that additional document was submitted by Alka Bhalla with Canadian Embassy. Passports and visas of complainants were given to her and thereafter she had given the same personally with opponent who had delivered the same to complainants. It is the contention of complainants that, CC/14/209 4/10 hence, they had to arrange for fresh tickets of 13/05/2013. Thus, fresh tickets were taken by complainant nos.1 and 3 from Mumbai to Ottawa. However, they had reached late in the night of 14th May, 2013. They could not attend the convocation ceremony which was held on 14/05/2013. It is the contention of complainants that as opponent had not taken proper steps for getting visa of complainant nos.1 and 3 they could not travel on 24/04/2013 from Mumbai to Vancouver. It is their contention that the tour that they had arranged at Vancouver also could not be performed and they also could not attend the convocation ceremony of complainant no.2. Complainants further required to obtain tickets from Mumbai to Ottawa. It is the contention of complainants that only because of the default on the part of the opponents they could not attend the tour from Vancouver and could not attend convocation ceremony at Ottawa and hence, complainants have claimed damages of Rs.60,000/- towards difference of tickets they had taken on 24/04/2013 and 13/05/2013 for complainant nos.1 and 3. Complainants further claimed Rs.68,000/- on account of damages sustained by complainant no.2 for coming to Vancouver and stay there for five days and go back to Ottawa along with costs and compensation.
(3) Opponent contested the complaint by filing their written version on record. Opponent submitted that delay caused in getting visa and passports was due to negligence of complainant no.1 as she has not provided necessary documents in that respect, although opponent had given letter about the same to complainant on 17/04/2013. It is their further submission that they are only responsible to process and assist for getting visa and issue of visa is sole discretion of Canadian Consulate. Moreover, visa was not given to complainant no.1 and 3 by Canadian embassy for want CC/14/209 5/10 of additional documents from them. As soon as additional documents submitted passport was given by the consulate to complainant no.1. It is their submission that the perfect Visa consultancy New Delhi and Canadian Embassy are responsible for not giving visa to complainant nos.1 and 3 and hence, they are necessary parties to proceeding. It is their further contention that in respect of processing application for getting visa of complainants opponent had claimed service charges from complainants. However, complainants have not paid the same and hence, opponents have given free service in that respect to complainants. Hence, complainants cannot be considered as consumers as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. In view of these submissions they have submitted that they have not given deficiency in service to complainants and hence, consumer complaint filed against them be dismissed.
(4) Considering rival contentions of parties, evidence adduced by them on record and documents filed on record following points arise for our determination and we have recorded our findings against them for the reasons given below:-
Sr.No. Points Finding
(i) Whether complainant are consumers of : Yes.
opponent?
(ii) Whether opponent has given deficiency : Yes.
in service to complainants?
(iii) Whether complainants are entitled to get : Yes.
damages along with costs and As per order.
compensation from opponent?
(iv) What order? : As per final
order.
REASONS:
CC/14/209 6/10
Point No.(i) and (ii) - Consumers and Deficiency in service:
(5) In this case it is admitted fact that complainant no.2 was studying at Ottawa, Canada. She had completed her graduation at Ottawa.
There was convocation ceremony on her completing Ontario Maharashtra Goa Exchange (OMG) Course at Ottawa on 14/05/2013. Prior to that all complainants decided for tour of West Coast of Canada and some part of the Canadian Rockies. In that respect they had arranged eleven days tour of West Coast of Canada. After attending that tour complainants were to attend Convocation Ceremony at Ottawa on 14/05/2013.
(6) In this case it is admitted fact that complainants have taken services of opponent for getting return air tickets and visas for complainant nos.1 and 3 and for getting travel insurance during this period. It appears that accordingly opponent no.2 had arranged return air ticket from Ottawa to Mumbai dated 20/05/2013. Opponent had also given letter to complainant no.1 for getting requisite documents for processing her application for getting visa for herself and for complainant no.3. Accordingly complainant no.1 had given requisite documents to opponent. In this case it is admitted fact that complainant no.1 was travelling with her daughter and her husband was not accompanying her. Hence, no objection certificate in that respect was required from the husband of complainant no.1. Although opponents are engaged in processing visa application they were not having knowledge of the same. Although in that respect query was made by Canadian Embassy and letter was collected for the same opponent had not sent the same to complainant no.1 in time. So they could not submit necessary documents before scheduled date of travel of 24/04/2013. Hence, complainants required to cancel their air ticket for going to Vancouver on CC/14/209 7/10 24/04/2013. Further it appears that complainant no.1 had to take steps personally and to take services of Alka Bhalla and Parth for collecting their Visas from Canadian Embassy. Complainants required to take their further tickets dated 13/05/2013 for going to Ottawa. In this case it is admitted fact that although opponent had taken responsibility of processing Visa applications of complainant nos.1 and 3 they had not taken proper steps to get visa of complainant nos.1 and 3 from Canadian Embassy in time before their travel to Vancouver on 24/04/2013. Hence, complainant no.1 had to take personal steps for collecting the visa and was required to rearrange her travel on 13/05/2013. In view of the same we are of the opinion that complainants are Consumers of opponent. The opponent has given deficiency in service to complainants. Hence, we answer point nos.(i) and (ii) in affirmative.
Point No.(iii) - Entitlement of compensation and costs:
(7) In this case it is admitted fact that complainant no.1 was required to repurchase tickets for journey on 13/05/2013 for herself and complainant no.3. Complainants have claimed difference of tickets at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per person. Although there is no document on record in respect of tickets of complainant nos.1 and 3 dated 24/04/2013 and 13/05/2013 on record to show that difference is of Rs.30,000/- per person, we are of the opinion that the amount claimed on account of difference of air tickers at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per person is reasonable. It is admitted fact that when tickets are purchased at eleventh hour higher price of ticket is required to be paid. In view of the same the amount of Rs.60,000/-
claimed on account of difference of air tickets by complainants appears to be reasonable.
CC/14/209 8/10(8) Complainants have also claimed amount of Rs.68,000/- as opponent no.2 had travelled from Ottawa to Vancouver and stayed there for seven days and returned back from Vancouver to Ottawa. In this case it is admitted fact that as complainant nos.1 and 3 could not get their visa and passports in time they could not travel on 24/04/2013. As they received visa and passports on 13/05/2013 they had taken journey on 13/05/2013. However, there was convocation ceremony on 14/05/2013. Hence. they had taken journey from Mumbai to Ottawa. In this case it appears that complainant no.2 had gone from Ottawa to Vancouver and remained there for seven days and as complainant nos.1 and 3 had not come to Vancouver she returned back to Ottawa after seven days. Although in that respect necessary documents of expenditure are not produced on record the amount of Rs.68,000/- claimed by complainant no.1 in that respect appears to be reasonable. In view of the same we are of the opinion that complainant no.1 is entitled to get amount of Rs.60,000/- and amount of Rs.68,000/- from opponent towards damages.
(9) Complainants have claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- as they could not attend their tour at Canada and could not attend Convocation Ceremony of complainant no.2. Complainants have also claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as complainant no.2 was required to stay at Vancouver from 24th April, 2013 to 28th April, 2013. Complainants have also claimed compensation of Rs.7,000/- for mental pain and agony.
(10) In respect of stay of complainant no.2 at Vancouver from 24/04/2013 the amount of expenditure of Rs.68,000/- is already given to complainant no.1. For her forced stay at Vancouver during this period, we are of the opinion that complainant no.2 is entitled to CC/14/209 9/10 get compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from opponent. Complainant no.3 is daughter of complainant no.1. She could not attend the tour at Canada and could not attend Convocation Ceremony of her sister. We are of the opinion that she is also entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in that respect from opponent. However, complainant no.1 suffered mental pain and agony for collection of visa and passport from Canadian Embassy and to rearrange her tour. She also suffered mental agony and pain as complainant no.2 was forced to reside at Vancouver without any assistance from 24th April, 2013 to 28th April, 2013. Admittedly, she could not attend tour and convocation ceremony of complainant no.2. We are of the opinion that complainant no.1 is entitled to get compensation in that respect from opponent of Rs.3,00,000/-. In view of the same se answer point no.(iii) accordingly and proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Consumer complaint is hereby partly allowed.
(ii) Opponent is hereby directed to pay amount of Rs.60,000/-
(Rupees Sixty Thousand only) and Rs.68,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Thousand only) to complainant no.1 on account of damages sustained by her.
(iii) Opponent is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) to complainant no.1 for mental pain and agony suffered by her.
(iv) Opponent is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to complainant no.2 and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to Complainant no.3 for mental pain and agony which they suffered CC/14/209 10/10 by not attending tour by both of them and convocation ceremony by complainant no.3.
(v) Opponent is further directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to complainant no.1 in respect of this litigation.
(vi) The amount of costs, compensation and damages be given by opponent to complainants within a period of one month from passing of this order, otherwise, opponent will have to pay interest on these amount @12% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization of amount by complainants.
Pronounced on 24th January, 2020.
[P.B. Joshi] Presiding Judicial Member [D.R. Shirasao] Judicial Member emp