IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 22.04.2024 Date of Hearing: 18.07.2025 Date of Decision: 12.09.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.292/2024 IN THE MATTER OF INDIAN RAILWAYS CATERING AND TOURISM CORP. LTD.

NORTH ZONE, RAIL YATRI NIWAS BUILDING NEW DELHI RAILWAY COMPLEX AJMERI GATE SIDE, NEW DELHI-110024 …APPELLANT (Through Mr. Sunil Goyal, Mr. Nitin Kala &

Mr. Rachit Gupta, Advocates Email: goyalandco86@gmail.com Mob.9811056767)

VERSUS MR. NAGARAJA RAO SRIDHARAN S/O MR. NAGARAJA RAO R/O D-164, GROUND FLOOR, LAJPAT NAGAR 01 NEW DELHI-110024 …RESPONDENT CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Sunil Goyal and Ms. Shilpa Chaurasia, Counsel for the appellant (Mob: 9811056767 & Email: goyalandco86@gmail.com)

Respondent in person (Mobile:9940215698, Email: nsridhar1942@gmail.com)

PER : HON’BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“1.1 The complaint has been filed for allegations of deficiency of services that complainant took the tour Visa for Singapore and Malaysia, however, Visa for Singapore was granted but Visa for Malaysia was rejected. He had the amount of entire package but it was declined for want of Visa for Malaysia. The OP claimed it was reapplied but the same was not informed to him vis-à-vis 51.5% of paid amount was deducted arbitrarily.

1.2 The complaint has been opposed by the OP that there is no deficiency of services, rather the case of complainant was considered as a special case and after persuasions, the amount was partly deducted under the heading of 'amount incurred' and remaining amount was returned to him. The Visa was reapplied but it was rejected by the Embassy of Malaysia, which was in their domain and discretion; the OP cannot be blamed therefor.

2.1 The complainant is a senior citizen, age about 75 years at the time of filing of the complaint and he is retired employee from Central Government, surviving on pension. He never travelled to any foreign country despite having valid passport since 2014. In his maiden attempt to fulfill his long pending desire to visit Singapore and Malaysia, he decided to avail tour package offered by OP that was to take off on 13.10.2016.

2.2 The complainant paid Rs. 86,120/- towards the tour package on 20.09.2016 in the office of OP and also produced original passport, Aadhar card, Pan card, etc. which were verified and acknowledged by the OP. The package cost included Visa charges for both the countries. The tour was confirmed to the complainant on 04.10.2016 through an email, however, an additional amount of Rs. 3,262/- of medical insurance was also asked, which was paid by the complainant on 07.10.2016 on the same very day. It was 10.10.2016 when complainant was informed on telephone that his Singapore Visa has been received but for Malaysian Visa, the complainant was asked to provide additional residential proof once again (although complainant’s Adhar card already furnished was available to them). However, on the same very day the complainant personally provided- (i) bank passbook, (ii) cheque book, wherein residential address was printed and (iii) LPG connection book issued to the consumer/complainant.

On 12.10.2016 afternoon, just immediately before the date of take off, the complainant was informed on phone that his Visa has been rejected but without disclosing reason of rejection. Then, on 13.01.2017 a sum of Rs. 43,358/- was refunded to him that too after repeated requests by the complainant and lapse of nearly three and half month against total paid amount of Rs. 89,382/- for the tour package; it was a huge deduction of Rs.46,024/- (i.e. 51.5%) despite no fault of the complainant. The complainant was not furnished detail account despite several request to OP of such deductions as well as an RTI application dated 16.02.2017 was also filed to furnish the detail and the date of Visa application furnish to Malaysian