The central legal principle established in the judgment is the duty of a visa service provider to advise the applicant on necessary visas for travel, and the provider's liability for additional expenses incurred due to their failure to provide proper guidance.

ORDER:

Mr. D.R. Shirasao, Judicial Member-Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum, Central Mumbai, in Consumer Case No. 15/280 on 12.1.2017 directing Opponent to pay amount of Rs. 1,93,000 to Complainant along with interest on that amount along with cost and compensation, Opponent has preferred this appeal.

The brief facts of the case is as under:

Respondent/Complainant had planned to go to New Zealand along with his wife for honeymoon. He had planned his entire tour on his own and booked air tickets and made accommodation arrangement via online. However, he had no knowledge of taking visa of New Zealand. Hence he had approached Opponent for getting visa of New Zealand. He submitted all necessary documents including copy of air tickets and travel itinerary to Opponent. Accordingly, Opponent had obtained visa for Complainant and his wife. However, at the time of boarding at Singapore airport, Complainant and his wife were not allowed to board the flight going via Australia as they were not having transit visa of Australia. Complainant submitted that hence, at that time he was required to purchase a new air tickets for New Zealand directly from Singapore. As his programme was delayed, on that ground he was also required to make expenditure for making new arrangement of his residence. It is the contention of Complainant that as Opponent had not taken their transit visa of Australia, he was required to make this expenditure. Hence, he filed complaint for recovery of amount of Rs. 1,93,000 against Opponent along with interest on that amount along with amount of Rs. 2,72,500 towards mental agony and cost of litigation.

2. Opponent contested complaint by filing written statement on record. They admitted that they had taken visa for Complainant and his wife of New Zealand as per requests made by Complainant. However, they specifically denied that they were knowing the air tickets purchased by Complainant and Complainant had given the same to them. They submitted that as they were not having knowledge that Complainant and his wife are going to New Zealand via Australia, they have not taken transit visa of Australia. They further submitted that for short stay at Australia airport no one is required to obtain transit visa. They submitted that as per request of complainant, they have already obtained visa of New Zealand for Complainant and his wife and as such, they have not given deficiency in service to Complainant. Hence, they submitted that complaint filed by the Complainant be dismissed.

3. Considering rival contentions of parties and documents produced by them on record, the learned District Forum had come to conclusion that as Opponent had not obtained transit visa of Australia for Complainant and his wife, they were not allowed at Singapore to go to New Zealand via Australia and because of which Complainant required to make expenditure for purchasing new tickets for going to New Zealand directly and also to make further expenditure for his accommodation. Hence, the learned District Forum directed Opponent to pay amount of Rs. 1,93,000 to Complainant along with interest on that amount along with cost and compensation. Being aggrieved by the same Opponent has filed this appeal.

4. Heard learned Advocate appearing for Opponent/appellant. He submitted that Complainant had requested to get visa of New Zealand only for himself and for his wife. Accordingly, Opponent had obtained visa of New Zealand for Complainant and his wife after accepting necessary charges in that respect from Complainant. Hence, he submitted that Opponent has not given any deficiency in service to Complainant. Complainant had not asked for transit visa of Australia for himself and for his wife and hence, Opponent was not required to obtain that transit visa of Australia for Complainant and for his wife. As such, by not obtaining that transit visa of Australia for Complainant and his wife, Opponent has not given any deficiency in ser