State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Aviana Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs Aloke Kumar Chatterjee on 5 September, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1272/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 27/09/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/34/2014 of District Kolkata-I(North)) 1. M/s. Aviana Travels Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director, Miss Alka Rathi, Neelambar Unit-10/A, Level 10, 28B, Shakespeare Sarani, P.S.- Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700 017. 2. Sri Pampan Ghosh, Officer-in-charge, M/s. Aviana Travels Pvt. Ltd. AE-350, Sector-I, P.S.- Bidhan Nagar(N), Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700 064. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Aloke Kumar Chatterjee S/o Lt. Laxshminarayan Chatterjee, FD-8/5, Sector-III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata -700 106. 2. Smt. Anubha Chatterjee W/o Sri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, FD-8/5, Sector-III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata -700 106. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Amitava Das , Mr. Barun Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent: in Person, Advocate Dated : 05 Sep 2017 Final Order / Judgement
Date of Filing - 28.12.2016 Date of Hearing - 17.08.2017 The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is at the behest of the Opposite Parties to assail the Order No.19 dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 34/2014. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the consumer complaint lodged by the Respondents under Section 12 of the Act on contest with the direction upon the Opposite Parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,60,238/-, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within 30 days from date of communication of the order in default, it shall carry interest @10% p.a. till full realisation.
The Respondents herein being Complainants lodged the complaint stating that their son-in-law along with their daughter has been living at Sweden and for the purpose of overseas trouble, they made a contact with the OPs for a tour at Sweden and after detail consultations, the OPs apprised their overseas tour schedule to the complainants. The OPs also agreed to make necessary arrangement for obtaining U.K. and schengen Visa and for preparing other legal documents for additional tour from Frankfruit Airport to Sweden and returned from Copenhagen to Calcutta through Dubai. On 03.04.2013 the complainants deposited all the documents in accordance with the check list for obtaining Visa and also handed over the duly filled up application. The complainants have also made a payment of total sum of Rs.4,10,922/- being the total amount for said overseas tour. The complainants alleged that the opposite parties did not submit duly filled up Visa application to the concerned authority in time for issuing Swedish Visa and keeping the passport of the complainants at their own custody for flying 18.05.2013 from Calcutta. As a result, the complainants could not avail the said tour programme during the period from 18.05.2013 to May, half day of 24th, 2013 in accordance with the tour schedule of the OPs along with the other tourists. On 23.05.2013 after getting information, the complainants went to the office of OPs and collected Swedish Visa and surprised to find that the said Visa was stamped on 22.05.2013. The opposite parties handed over two air tickets dated 23.05.2013 for flying Kolkata to Paris and on arrival at Charles De Gaul Airport at Paris, the complainants became helpless and faced different problems including language problems and in order to reach to the place of visit at Eifel Tower at Paris to meet with other co-tourists they had to bear expenses of Euro 150 = INR 11,710/-. After returning from tour, the complainants demanded refund of pro-rata costs of 5½ unit out of 17 units amounting to Rs.1,60,238/- but it remain unheeded. Hence, the respondents approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for refund of the above amount, compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
The appellants being OP Nos. 1 & 2 by filing a joint written version have stated that there was no negligence or any deficiency in rendering any service on the part of them in course of dealing with the complainants while on tour and as such the complaint should be dismissed.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned final order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the opposite parties as indicated above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the opposite parties have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellants forcefully submitted that the parties are bound by the agreements and referring to clause 1& 2 of the General Terms and Conditions (GTC), the Ld. Advocate has submitted that there was no deficiency on the part of them. He has also submitted that after returning country by a letter dated 19.06.2013, the respondents have expressed their satisfactions with the appellants and as such lodging of complaint is an afterthought. He has further submitted that granting of Visa by the Swedish Consulate is not within their domain and as such no responsibility should be fixed against them and in this regard the Ld. District Forum has passed the impugned order ignoring the GTC and therefore, the impugned order should be set aside.
Per contra, the respondent no.1 who appears in person has contended that the appellant no.1 company has shown negligence in handing over all the documents to the Swedish Consulate which they handed over to the appellants on 03.04.2013. Expanding the argument, he has submitted that only on 07.05.2013 the Visa application was submitted and the same was collected on 22.05.2013 which indicates sheer negligence on the part of the appellant no.1 company.
I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the appellants and respondent no.1 in person.
Having heard the parties and on going through the materials on record, it would reveal that the respondents came to the office of the appellant no.1 company for the purpose of tour programme and after prolonged discussion, the respondents agreed with the tour schedule of the appellant no.1 company from 18.05.2013 to 06.06.2013. needless to mention that the person who want to make tour to Europe including U.K., have to take U.K. Visa and other European countries Visa (Schengen) separately. Form the contents of Para-10 of the written version, it reveals that the appellant company has applied first for all the tour members of 32 persons and the U.K. Visa of the respondents was granted on 24.04.2013 which came to the office of appellant no.1 company on 25.04.2013. After such approval of U.K. Visa the Schengen visa was applied. The appellant no.1 company has stated that the application of Schegen visa of the respondents routed through the appellant no.1 company immediately which reached Swedish Embassy in New Delhi probably on 29.04.2013. The appellant no.1 company could not assign any specific date whether it was reached in Swedish Embassy on 29.04.2013. In any case, it is evident that the application was submitted on 07.05.2013. it is not clear why despite receipt of U.K. visa on 24.04.2013 it was submitted on 07.05.2013. The appellant company in all fairness should have taken steps much earlier for obtaining Swedish Visa. It is evident that the visa was collected by the appellant no.1 company on 22.05.2013 and on the following day, the respondents could avail the flight for Paris from Kolkata and ultimately could meet with the co-tourist on 24.05.2013.
In Clause - 2 of GTC it has been mentioned - " all travellers require a valid passport and which should valid for at least six months from the departure date ( in some countries it is for nine months ). The traveller is responsible for all documentation, entry and exit requirements of the countries visited. Aviana Travels accepts no responsibility if you do not have the correct documentation or any visa refusal." In the case beforehand, there is no allegation that the respondents did not supply the documents or requirements for obtaining visa or it is not the case that the Embassy refused to grant visa to the respondents. The untoward incident has happened due to delay on the part of the appellant No.1 Company to submit the visa application to the Swedish Embassy immediately after receiving U.K. Visa.
Due to such fault on the part of traveller, the respondent could not avail the trip for 5 ½ days from 18.05.2013 till half day of 24.05.2013. In such a situation, the respondents have prayed for pro rata cost of the entire tour cost. The appellant company had to arrange air ticket for the respondents on 22.05.2013 after obtaining visa and for that they may bear expenses ( which was not disclosed ) but the respondents had also borne expenses for travel by them from Airport of Paris to Hotel and there from to Eifel Tower to meet with the team and as such they had to bear an expenses of Euro 80 + 70 = 150 equivalent to Rs.11,710/-.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances and having heard the Ld. Advocate for the appellants and respondent no.1 in person, I find that the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in passing the order impugned taking into consideration the harassment and mental agony suffered by the respondents for the negligence of appellant no.1 company. In other words, the impugned order being based on proper reasoning, it should not be interfered with.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.
The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit - I for information. [HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER