IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 05.04.2010 Date of hearing: 28.04.2022 Date of Decision: 05.07.2022 COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 98/2010 IN THE MATTER OF Dr. (Ms.) Khazana Aziz D/o Mr. Abdul Aziz Dar R/o Baghat Barzulla, Near C.R.P.F., Headquarters Distt. Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir. (Through: Arun Singh, Advocate)

…Complainant VERSUS

1. Cox & Kings (India) Ltd Indra Palace, 'H' Block, Connaught Circus New Delhi-110001 (Through: Swati Sinha, Advocate)

2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

Registered office;

Oriental House, A-25/27. Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi- 110002.

(Through: Abhishek Kumar, Advocate)

….Opposite Parties CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE SH. RAJAN SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: None for the Parties.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

JUDGMENT

1. The present Complaint has been filed before this Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of Opposite Parties and has prayed for the following reliefs:

a) To reimburse the charges paid by the Complainant to the Respondent No.1 for the trip, and along with the amount of 60 Euro which was paid by the Complainant for rectifying the tickets along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of her return back to Delhi on 26th July, 2009.

b) To pay the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) in lieu of compensation for the harassment, hardship, mental agony & mental trauma which the Complainant has suffered due to the negligent and deficient service of the Respondent No. 1.

c) To pay to the Complainant $ 1000 (USD) on account of trip cancellation/curtailment and $ 2,50,000 (USD) on account of Medical Expenses, Evacuation and Repatriation as per the policy coverage details enumerated in the insurance policy no. 121800/1138/EZG/06/1004458.

d) To reimburse Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only)

as to the expenses which the Complainant has been incurring on account of the incidental legal charges.

e) Any other further relief that this Hon'ble Forum deems fit & proper under the circumstances mentioned above may please be awarded in favour of the Complainant.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complaint wanted to go to Germany for some days, for which she approached Opposite party no.1 to inquire about the formalities regarding visa and other things. The Opposite party no. 1 told the Complainant that it would be difficult to obtain Visa for Germany as it is a lengthy process and convinced her to take Schengen Staten Visa, which is valid in many European Countries. On consent of the Complainant, the Opposite party no.1 arranged the Visa for Netherlands in name of the Complainant and instructed her that she can travel to Germany carrying the same Visa as travel within the European Union is unrestricted and on the Visa of one country, travel internally by road and rail transport to the neighbouring countries is legal, so Complainant can reach Germany internally from Netherlands through road transport.

3. Thereafter, the Complainant was granted a multiple entry tourist Visa which was valid from 14th July, 2009 till 8th August, 2009, vide Visa No. BNL 9645836, with the condition that one stay will not be more than 10 days at a time. Opposite party no. 1 has given an electronic ticket receipt to the Complainant in which the departure date from Delhi was 25th July, 2009 and the arrival date to Delhi was 6th August, 2009. Despite of knowing the fact that the Complainant was permitted the Visa for stay of 10 days, the Opposite party no.1 has issued the return ticket on the 12th day.

4. The Complainant was totally unaware of these minute details and when the Complainant reached Netherlands, she was stopped by the Airport Authorities at Netherlands and she was informed about the discrepancies in her return ticket. To rectify the discrepancies, the