IMPORTANT POINT
Travels & Tours – Deficiency in service – Refund of amount – Clause in brochure reflects only one sided terms of agreement in favour of travel agency & cannot be acted upon.

JUDGMENT

B. Sudheendra Kumar, President.—The appellant is the opposite party and the respondents are the complainants in C.C. No. 345/2016 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (“the District Commission” for short).

2. The 1st respondent is the husband of the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to an advertisement in the Mathrubhumi daily about a package tour to Dubai, the respondents approached the appellant over phone. The representatives of the appellant visited the respondents and explained the tour package and collected an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the respondents on 24.12.2015 towards booking charges for the tour. Thereafter, the 1st respondent visited the appellant and paid the balance amount of Rs.82,000/- towards the full charges for the tour package for the 1st respondent and his wife to Dubai. The tour was scheduled to be held from 23.01.2016 to 26.01.2016. On 23.01.2016, when the respondents proceeded to the airport in an auto rickshaw, the 1st respondent received a phone call from the appellant stating that the visa of the 2nd respondent was not approved by the embassy and hence the 1st respondent alone could proceed to Dubai as scheduled. Since it was a joint tour package for the 1st respondent and his wife, the 1st respondent did not go alone. Thereafter, the respondents visited the office of the appellant on many days and requested for rescheduling the tour programme. Eventually, when the respondents were convinced that the appellant was evading to accede to the request of the respondents for rescheduling the tour, the respondents went to the office of the appellant and submitted an application for refund of the amount paid by them. Thereafter, the respondents caused to issue a legal notice. However, the appellant did not respond to the lawyer notice, even though the appellant had sent a cheque for Rs.51,000/- to the 1st respondent. The request of the respondents for the refund of the balance amount paid by them was not accepted by the appellant. In the said circumstances, the respondents approached the District Commission with the above said complaint.

3. The appellant filed version before the District Commission admitting the programme of tour package proposed to be organized by the appellant. The appellant contended that the appellant had taken all steps to get the visa for the 2nd respondent. However, the visa for the 2nd respondent could not be received till the other persons in the tour package left for Dubai on 23.01.2016. Therefore, the appellant requested the respondents to proceed to Dubai on the next day when the visa was received. However, the respondents did not agree to the said request. That apart, as per the conditions in the brochure and the terms agreed to by the parties, the air fare and visa fee are not refundable.

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and the documentary evidence Exts. A1 to A24 for the respondents/complainants. DW1 was examined for the appellant/opposite party. No document was marked for the appellant. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission found that there was deficiency in service on the side of the appellant. Accordingly, the District Commission directed the appellant/opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.51,000/- to the respondents, which was the amount already paid by the respondents to the appellant for the proposed journey arranged by the appellant. The District Commission further directed the appellant/opposite party to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

6. The points arise for consideration are:

i. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the side of the appellant?

ii. Whether the order impugned is liable to be set aside or modified?

7. Point (i):- It is not disputed that pursuant to an advertisement in Mathrubhumi daily regarding a tour programme organized by the appellant, the respon