State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Cox And Kings Ltd. vs Amreesh Kr. Verma & Anr. on 5 January, 2018
Daily Order IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments: 05.01.18 Date of Decision: 10.01.18 First Appeal No. 165/2011 In the matter of: Cox & King (India) Ltd. Indra Place, H Block, Connaught Circus New Delhi-110 001. .....Appellant M/s Select Travels Palika Bhawan R.K. Puram New Delhi. ... ....Appellant Versus Shri Amreesh Kumar Verma 202, Swami Para Meerut City (UP) .....Respondent C ORAM Hon'ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial) Hon'ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member
1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER JUDICIAL) JUDGEMENT OP has preferred instant appeal order dated 17.08.09 passed by District Forum, New Delhi in CC No. 494/08. The appellant sought condonation of delay on the plea that it did not receive copy of order. It suddenly received notice u/s 27 of Consumer Protection Act on 02.02.11. From that date there is delay of 28 days. Vide order dated 27.05.11 copy of entries of dispatch register under which certified copy of judgement of this case was sent to OP, its postal receipt and acknowledgements were called but the same has not been received till date. The application has not been disposed of so far. In the interest of justice the application is allowed and delay in filing appeal is condoned.
2. On merit the facts are that respondent no. 1 herein visited office of OP 2/respondent no. 2 herein for Europe tour package. OP 2 who is agent of OP 1 referred him to OP 1 and the cost of tour was Rs. 31,900/- +455 Euro per person. The same include cost of trip, air ticket Ex-Delhi, accommodation in hotel, overseas mediclaim policy, meals, coach tours transfers, siteseeing, surface transportation but did not include visa charges. Respondent No. 1 had already visa of Europe including Schengenstatin. Appellant who was OP 1 before District Forum agreed to process visa of Himanshu Verma son of respondent no.1 and cost of visa fee was included in the cost price of tour i.e. Rs. 1,95,000/-. The same was paid by the complainant. Due to refusal of visa of son of the complainant, his son could not join tour and had to cancel his booking. Appellant refunded Rs. 50,000/- by saying that complainant had paid Rs. 1,50,000/- only instead of Rs. 1,95,000/-. Appellant deducted Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of cancellation charges which was illegal and against terms and conditions of the tour. Hence a complaint was filed for asking appellant to refund Rs. 1,00,000/- and compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2 did not appear and was proceeded exparte by the District Forum. However appellant filed WS giving details of amount received by it. It further pleaded that it could not apply for visa of son of respondent no. 1 as he already had one refusal on his passport from German Embassy. It obtained UK visa for son of respondent No. 1. It agreed to submit the case of son of respondent no. 1 for German visa on the condition that passenger would come personally for interview before embassy. On 08.12.07 executive of OP 2 visited appellant's office and requested to return all the documents of son of complainant by saying that they would apply for Schengen. Appellant immediately returned all the documents. It did not receive any response from OP 2 regarding status of visa of son of complainant. Since little time was left for tour departure, representative of appellant called office of OP 2 who informed that Schengen visa of son of complainant has again been rejected. OP 2 informed the complainant that tour was being cancelled due to want of travel document and appropriate cancellation charges would be levied as per terms and conditions.
4. After going through the material on record the District Forum found that complainant could not comprehend that at the eleventh hour visa of his son would be denied. The complainant wanted to undertake the tour and join but could not do so due to reasons beyond his control. It was not a case where complainant had cancelled the tour due to his own free will. Thus appellant could not forfeit any amount as the same would be punitive in nature. Accordingly appellant was directed to refund balance of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith Rs. 60,000/- on account of deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.
5. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for appellant. We did not have privilege of listening arguments of respondent as none appeared for respondent and it has been proceeded exparte. The counsel for the appellant stressed that respondent no. 1 did not dispute that it was agreed that appellant would refund amount after an appropriate cancellation charges due to any reason whatsoever including want of travel document.
6. The term 'due to any reason whatsoever including want of travel document' is wide enough to include the case of complainant. Complainant has not disputed that visa to his son had been denied. It is not his case that factum of denial of visa was communicated by complainant to the OP/appellant. So it cannot be said that OP/appellant agreed to arrange visa inspite of earlier refusal. This concealment was on the part of respondent no.1. Efforts of respondent no.1 to try again for visa failed.
7. It is a settled law that District Foras cannot go against the terms and conditions of agreement. For this reference may be made to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharati Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier II (1996) CPJ 25.
8. Similar view was taken by National Commission in Sahara India Commr. Vs.C Madhu Babu II (2011) CPJ 3 and Sahara India Commr. Vs. P.Gajendera Chary III(2010) CPJ 190.
9. Findings of District Forum that respondent no. 1 could not apprehend that at eleventh hour visa to his son would be denied is unfounded. He knew visa to his son has already been denied.
10. In view of the above discussion appeal succeeds and is accepted. Order of the District Forum is set aside and complaint is dismissed.
Copies of order be sent to all the parties free of cost.
One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) (O.P.GUPTA) MEMBER MEMBER(JUDICIAL