Back
CHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.C. Vyas, President, Veena Misra and V.K. Patil, Members
CHOWA LAL SAHU (DR.) - Appellant
Versus
AJAY TRAVELS - Respondent
Appeal Nos. 32 and 49 of 2008
Decided on : 10-02-2009
Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. K. Anandani, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a travel agency's negligence in fulfilling its obligations, such as obtaining emigration clearance and visa, can constitute deficiency in service, warranting compensation for the affected party.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Travel Agency - The court found that the travel agency was negligent in obtaining emigration clearance and visa well in time, leading to inconvenience for the complainant. The court upheld the decision of the District Forum, awarding compensation for mental harassment and refund of expenses.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant booked a tour sponsored by a travel agency for Bangkok Pattaya. However, due to the travel agency's negligence in obtaining emigration clearance and visa, the complainant faced inconvenience and delay in commencing the journey.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the travel agency was negligent in fulfilling its obligations, leading to deficiency in service. The compensation awarded by the District Forum was deemed appropriate considering the inconvenience suffered by the complainant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the negligence of the travel agency in obtaining emigration clearance and visa, leading to the complainant's inconvenience and delay in commencing the journey.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the travel agency's failure to obtain emigration clearance and visa well in time constituted deficiency in service, justifying the compensation awarded by the District Forum.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed, and the court upheld the decision of the District Forum, awarding compensation for mental harassment and refund of expenses to the complainant.
ORDER
Hon ble Mr. Justice S.C. Vyas, President - This order will govern disposal of Appeal No. 32/08 and also of Appeal No. 49/08 which has been filed by the OP against the same impugned order. Both these appeals have been preferred by both parties of Complaint Case No. 20/07 against order dated 24.12.2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), whereby the complaint was partly allowed. Compensation of Rs. 20,000 for mental harassment along with refund of Rs. 2,020 with interest @ 9% p.a. from 13.10.2006 and cost of litigation Rs. 500 has been awarded against the OP, who is appellant in another appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant and his friend booked a tour which was sponsored by Travel Agency of the OP for Bangkok Pattaya on 11.9.2006, the cost of the tour was Rs. 44,000. Passport of the complainant was handed over to the Travel Agency. Journy was to be commenced from 12.10.2006 and as per instruction of the Travel Agency complainant and his friend both went to Delhi by a flight of Indian Airlines. At Delhi it was informed by the OP to the complainant that the E.C.N.R. in the Passport has been cancelled by the Bhopal Office and therefore unless E.C.N.R. is cleared, journey to Bangkok Pattaya could not be performed and such clearance can be taken from Delhi itself on payment of Rs. 600. Amount was paid then and there, even then Emigration clearance could not be obtained by the OP. In these circumstances the friend of the complainant was advised to commence his journey as per schedule and the complainant was retained there at Delhi. Ultimately, ticket of the complainant of that day was cancelled. Complainant had to go Bangkok on next day and joined his friend. In this way he felt harassed and suffered inconvenience in the tour arranged by the OP, so complaint was preferred.
3. Before District Forum and Advocate appeared on behalf of the OP, later on he also stopped coming and case was proceeded ex parte against the OP.
4. In the appeal preferred by the complainant it has been contended that the amount which has been awarded by the District Forum is not appropriate, looking to the inconvenience suffered by the complainant and therefore, prayer for enhancement of the amount awarded by the District Forum including refund of deposited amount has been made. Whereas the Travel Agency in his appeal has assailed the impinged order on the ground that no deficiency in service was committed by Travel Agency and because passport of the complainant was not having entry of emigration and so he could not commence his journey on the appointed date. Later on emigration was got cleared by the Travel Agency and then the complainant could go on next date and thus he suffered no inconvenience.
5. We have heard both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
6. Passport of the complainant, copy of which, is available on record of the District Forum (Annexure A-1), shows endorsement of "Emigration check required (ECR) except for Bangladesh Pakistan and all countries in Europe (excluding Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), North America, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, South Africa, Singapore, and Thailand". This entry shows that emigration check was required for the countries for which journey were proposed and if the emigration clearance was not there on the passport and therefore journey could not be commenced then this fact should have been noticed by the Travel Agency earlier because the passport was deposited with the Travel Agency at the time of booking of the tour and as per receipt (Annexure A-8), Visa charges have also been collected by the Travel Agency to provide Visa well in time. Thus, we find that when complainant reached Delhi at the time of commencement of the journey and when he was informed that emigration clearance was necessary and he cannot perform his journey unless the emigration is got cleared, then definitely
