Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AHMEDABAD
Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member
Indiraben B. Patel —Appellant
versus
Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. —Respondents
Appeal No.464 of 2018
Decided on 4.4.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Services – Travel Agency – Visa Services – Tour package – When tour package is inclusive of everything – Appeal Against order of District Commission – Whether the opponent No. 01 was responsible for not obtaining visa for the said Russia tour or otherwise – A copy of tour advertisement published in the newspaper is on record at page no. 89 wherein it has been specifically mentioned the inclusive in the tour package – On facts it is crystal clear that opponent No. 01 is indispensably responsible for obtaining necessary visa for the entire touring countries – Thus, it is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent No. 01 and therefore it is believable that opponent No. 01 is solely responsible for not obtaining visa for the Russia tour and consequently due to such deficiency in service complainant could not join the tour for Russia and Finland.
Held: It is the allegation of the opponent No. 01 that it was the complainant’s say not to obtain her visa for Russia tour as she has a US passport and therefore there was no need to obtain visa for visiting Russia but opponent No. 01 has not submitted any evidence in connection to the above statement given by the complainant however for the sake of argument if this kind of statement given by the complainant then being a leading and professional Travelling Company it is the duty of the opponent No. 01 to brought to the notice of such vital facts to the complainant as she is a laymen but though being an eminent traveling company, opponent No. 01 did not obtained such visa. [Paras 14 to 16].
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Services – Travel Agency – Visa Services – Mismanagement and Negligence – Whether the opponent No. 01 was responsible for the flight missed by complainant for reaching Norway – Apparently complainant has paid requisite amount to the opponent No. 01 in connection to the said tour and therefore this Commission is of the view that as opponent could not obtained visa for the complainant, she only enjoyed the tour for 06 nights and 07 days instead of 13 nights and 14 days just because opponent did not obtained visa for her and therefore as she could not enjoyed the tour of Russia and Finland from date 06.06.2015 to 12.06.2015, she is entitled for getting Rs. 1,35,000/- from the opponent No. 01 – Thus, on perusal of the record, it appears that complainant is a senior citizen widow aged about 77 years and she was facing low physical activity and she joined this tour of opponent as she was accompanied by other three participants but due to mismanagement and negligence of the opponent No. 01, she could not enjoyed the tour and had to bear too much consequences and hardships alone in foreign countries as well as due to unfamiliar with the foreign language, she could not communicate with anyone and had suffered much inconvenience – Thus, Appeal is allowed, higher compensation is awarded. [Paras 17 to 21]
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member.—Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (Main) on 23.05.2018 in Complaint No. 963 of 2015, the original complainant has filed the present Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Commission. For the sake of the convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature.
2. To dispose of this Appeal, few relevant facts are required to be mentioned: It is the case of the complainant that complainant is a senior citizen widow aged about 77 years, opponent No. 01 is a Traveling Company with its head office at Mumbai and Branch office situated at various cities and opponent No. 02 is Insurance Company which provides the insurance to tourists for the travelling. It is further the case of the complainant that opponent No. 01 has planned for the tour of Russia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Copenhagen, and also published an advertisement for such tour in newspaper and by attracting the said advertisement, complainant was desirous to take part in the tour of European countries and therefore she contacted opponent No. 01 office at Ahmedabad. However as complainant desired to go for solo tour and she being an aged person facing low physical activity, she put some conditions for joining the tour before opponent such as visa for every travelling countries and wheelchair or bogie at Airport and also the opponent travelling Company assures for the same with the facility of transportation as per package, residence, site seeing, necessary taxes, visa and meals etc. and hence by trusting the say of opponent, complainant shown willingness to take part in such tour of the opponent. It is further the case of complainant that opponent given a package amounting to Rs. 2,51,417/- for the said tour including Russia and in pursuant to which complainant has paid booking amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide cheque on date 03.05.2015 to the opponent. Furthermore after the deposit payment, opponent has taken passports of all tourists which were to be part of such tour for carrying out visa procedure but opponent did not take the passport of complainant for obtaining visa stating that as she has an American passport, she doesn’t need to take visa for visiting Russia. Furthermore on inquiry about such visa complainant came to know that visa has to be taken even also in case of American passport and therefore she again insisted opponent for the same but opponent again assured her same as before. It is alleged by the complainant that though she has sent all the relevant documents with passport to obtain visa, opponent did not care to take visa for complainant.
3. It is further submitted by the complainant that without caring much about obtaining visa, opponent took the remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- vide cheque dated 30.05.2015 and Rs. 4,000/- cash for the Euro rate difference from the complainant and informed her that they will hand over the visa for all concerned countries with passport at Mumbai. Furthermore the Emirates Airways flight of said tour was to be taken off from Mumbai Airport at 4:30AM on 06.06.2015 and reporting time of the said flight was 1:30AM and therefore complainant went for Mumbai at 2:00PM on date 05.06.2015 via Shatabdi Train and before a few hours on date 05.06.2015 at the last moment complainant was informed by the opponent office that her visa could not be obtained for the said tour and therefore they are unable to take her to Russia on date 06.06.2015 and being aggrieved by such act it is submitted by complainant that as she was disappointed, on asking the refund of whole payment of tour, opponent denied for the same and stated that on account of such visa issue, now she can tour all the other places except the Russia otherwise she had to bear all the deposited tour expenses if she desires to cancel the tour and added that now she
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
