State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Khazana Aziz vs Cox And Kings India Ltd. on 5 July, 2022
C. NO. 98/2010 DR. (MS.) KHAZANA AZIZ VS. COX & KINGS & ANR. D.O.D. : 05.07.2022
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 05.04.2010
Date of hearing: 28.04.2022
Date of Decision: 05.07.2022
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 98/2010
IN THE MATTER OF
Dr. (Ms.) Khazana Aziz
D/o Mr. Abdul Aziz Dar
R/o Baghat Barzulla,
Near C.R.P.F., Headquarters
Distt. Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir.
(Through: Arun Singh, Advocate)
...Complainant
VERSUS
1. Cox & Kings (India) Ltd
Indra Palace, 'H' Block,
Connaught Circus
New Delhi-110001
(Through: Swati Sinha, Advocate)
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
Registered office;
Oriental House,
A-25/27. Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi- 110002.
(Through: Abhishek Kumar, Advocate)
....Opposite Parties
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 8
C. NO. 98/2010 DR. (MS.) KHAZANA AZIZ VS. COX & KINGS & ANR. D.O.D. : 05.07.2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE SH. RAJAN SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: None for the Parties.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
JUDGMENT
1. The present Complaint has been filed before this Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of Opposite Parties and has prayed for the following reliefs:
a) To reimburse the charges paid by the Complainant to the Respondent No.1 for the trip, and along with the amount of 60 Euro which was paid by the Complainant for rectifying the tickets along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of her return back to Delhi on 26th July, 2009.
b) To pay the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) in lieu of compensation for the harassment, hardship, mental agony & mental trauma which the Complainant has suffered due to the negligent and deficient service of the Respondent No. 1.
c) To pay to the Complainant $ 1000 (USD) on account of trip cancellation/curtailment and $ 2,50,000 (USD) on account of Medical Expenses, Evacuation and Repatriation as per the policy coverage details enumerated in the insurance policy no. 121800/1138/EZG/06/1004458.
d) To reimburse Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as to the expenses which the Complainant has been incurring on account of the incidental legal charges.
DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 8
C. NO. 98/2010 DR. (MS.) KHAZANA AZIZ VS. COX & KINGS & ANR. D.O.D. : 05.07.2022
e) Any other further relief that this Hon'ble Forum deems fit
& proper under the circumstances mentioned above may please be awarded in favour of the Complainant.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complaint wanted to go to Germany for some days, for which she approached Opposite party no.1 to inquire about the formalities regarding visa and other things. The Opposite party no. 1 told the Complainant that it would be difficult to obtain Visa for Germany as it is a lengthy process and convinced her to take Schengen Staten Visa, which is valid in many European Countries. On consent of the Complainant, the Opposite party no.1 arranged the Visa for Netherlands in name of the Complainant and instructed her that she can travel to Germany carrying the same Visa as travel within the European Union is unrestricted and on the Visa of one country, travel internally by road and rail transport to the neighbouring countries is legal, so Complainant can reach Germany internally from Netherlands through road transport.
3. Thereafter, the Complainant was granted a multiple entry tourist Visa which was valid from 14th July, 2009 till 8th August, 2009, vide Visa No. BNL 9645836, with the condition that one stay will not be more than 10 days at a time. Opposite party no. 1 has given an electronic ticket receipt to the Complainant in which the departure date from Delhi was 25th July, 2009 and the arrival date to Delhi was 6th August, 2009. Despite of knowing the fact that the Complainant was permitted the Visa for stay of 10 days, the Opposite party no.1 has issued the return ticket on the 12th day.
4. The Complainant was totally unaware of these minute details and when the Complainant reached Netherlands, she was stopped by the Airport Authorities at Netherlands and she was informed about the DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 8 C. NO. 98/2010 DR. (MS.) KHAZANA AZIZ VS. COX & KINGS & ANR. D.O.D. : 05.07.2022 discrepancies in her return ticket. To rectify the discrepancies, the Complainant went to the KLM Airline counter and got her tickets rectified and alternative return tickets were prepared for 4th August, 2009, for which she had paid an amount of 60 Euro (Annexed as Annexure 'C'). But even after this, the Complainant was not permitted to enter Netherlands and was told by the authorities that the invoice carried by her, specifies that she is carrying the Visa for Germany and not for Netherlands. Thereafter, the Complainant was further humiliated by the authorities and all her documents were confiscated and was illegally detained for 24 hours without giving any specific reasons.
5. Further, the Opposite party no.1 has provided the accommodation facility in Hotel Casa 400 situated at Netherlands (Annexed as Annexure 'E') but Complainant was informed at the time of interrogation by the Netherlands Airport Authority that no such booking has been made in her name. The Complainant was shocked as she has already paid the amount of Rs. 17,938/- to the Opposite party no. 1 for the accommodation in the said hotel.
6. Thereafter, the Dutch Expulsion and Extradition Department issued an expulsion notice against the Complainant and she was deported back to Delhi on 26th July, 2009, with no specified reasons for such deportation (Annexed as Annexure 'G').
7. The Complainant after returning back, wrote a written complaint vide dated 06.08.2009 to the Embassy of Netherlands and also forwarded the copy of the said complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir (Annexed as Annexure 'I').
8. Also, the whole trip of the Complainant was already insured by the Opposite party no.2 and according to the policy coverage details, the Opposite party no.2 is liable to pay to the Complainant a sum of:
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 8 C. NO. 98/2010 DR. (MS.) KHAZANA AZIZ VS. COX & KINGS & ANR. D.O.D. : 05.07.2022
a.) $ 1000 (USD), if in case, the trip is cancelled or curtailed and b.) $ 2,50,000 (USD), in case of "Repatriation" (Annexed as Annexure 'J').
9. The Complainant tried to contact the Opposite parties to compensate the losses and harassment suffered by her but of no avail. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties, the Complainant approached this Commission.
10. The Opposite party no. 1 contested the present case and raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite party submitted that Opposite Party No.1 is not in any manner concerned with the reason of the detention as issuing Visa is the responsibility of the concerned Consulate and not of the Opposite Party No.1.
11. The Opposite Party no. 2 has also filed its written statement and has raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Party no. 2 submitted that the premium towards the said policy was received on 14.09.2009 from the Opposite Party no. 1 i.e. much after the happening of the alleged incident and due to this reason, the claim of the Complainant is not maintainable. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties prayed that the complaint should be dismissed.
12. The Complainant has filed the Rejoinder rebutting both the written statements filed by the Opposite Parties. Both the parties have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
13. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the parties.
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 8 C. NO. 98/2010 DR. (MS.) KHAZANA AZIZ VS. COX & KINGS & ANR. D.O.D. : 05.07.2022
14. Before delving into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to check whether the present Complaint falls under the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission as it goes into the roots of the case and will affects the maintainability of the present case.
15. To deal with this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:
"(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain-
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed [exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore]; and
(ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 8 C. NO. 98/2010 DR. (MS.) KHAZANA AZIZ VS. COX & KINGS & ANR. D.O.D. : 05.07.2022 do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
16. Analysis of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 leads us to the conclusion that this commission shall have the pecuniary jurisdiction in cases where the total claim including the compensation is more than twenty lakhs and less than One Crore.
17. Having discussed the statutory position, the facts of the present case reflect that the Complainant in her prayer clause has demanded the following amount from the Opposite Parties:
a. An amount of 60 Euro i.e. Rs. 3,637/- (calculated as per average exchange rate in year 2010) which was paid by the Complainant for rectifying tickets at the Netherlands Airport.
b. Rs. 10,00,000/- in lieu of compensation. c. $ 1,000 (USD) i.e. Rs. 45,730/- (calculated as per average exchange rate in year 2010) on account of trip cancellation and $ 2,50,000 (USD) i.e. 1,14,32,500/- (calculated as per average exchange rate in year 2010) on account of Medical expenses, Evacuation and Repatriation as per the policy cover from the Opposite party no. 2.
d. Rs. 15,000/- as litigation cost.
18. Based on the above calculations, it is clear that in the present case, even if the entire refund of Rs. 1,24,96,867/- is taken into consideration. The total figure crosses the pecuniary limit of Rs. One Crore (in accordance with the Section 17 of Consumer Protection DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 8 C. NO. 98/2010 DR. (MS.) KHAZANA AZIZ VS. COX & KINGS & ANR. D.O.D. : 05.07.2022 Act, 1986) and therefore, this Commission is paralysed on the want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
19. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed.
20. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
21. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
22. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (RAJAN SHARMA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
05.07.2022 DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 8