COX AND KINGS I LTD vs COL NARNE RANGA RAO

-COL. Narne Ranga Rao and Dr. (Mrs) Santha Rao Narne are the President and the Director of Narne Group of Companies. M/s. Elsonic Santo Corporation was the opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum and organizer of the Elsonic Horticulture/floriculture Agro Technocrat Training and Tieup programme in Holland. The programme was for one week and cost for participant includes return excursion fare Bombay-Amsterdam-Bombay including accommodation was Rs. 1,59,435. It is the say of the complainant that he paid entrance fee and also registration charges in favour of opposite party No. 1. M/s. Cox and Kings (I) Ltd. was the opposite party No. 2 and M/s. T. T. Travels Pvt. Ltd. was the opposite party No. 3. Thereafter in pursuance of the demand of the opposite party No. 1, complainant paid Rs. 45,255 on 10. 3. 1995 and Rs. 1,42,010 on 10. 3. 1995 to opposite party No. 3. Due to the complainant No. 2''s sudden illness, she cancelled the tour programme. It is the say of the complainant that opposite parties have not refunded the amount and the opposite party No. 2 did not exercise any skill in obtaining visa to Holland in time for the tour as they have used out-dated visa application forms due to which complainant had to cancel his business plans causing great inconvenience and financial loss.

DISTRICT Forum conducted a detailed inquiry based on the pleadings and allowed the complaint holding that the complainants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,60,000 and directed the opposite parties to pay the said amount with interest @ 12 % p. a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization and cost of Rs. 3,000. Dissatisfied by the order of District Forum M/s. Cox and Kings (I) Limited filed an appeal before the State Commission of Andhra Pradesh. The State Commission after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal.

The State Commission held as follows: "the complainant has filed documents which clearly establishes that the complainant has paid the amount towards the tour programme and that the opposite parties failed to obtain visa and the programme was cancelled. After cancellation of the programme when the complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the amount and the opposite parties have taken different pleas contended by the opposite party No. 3 that is only a travel agent and he is no way concerned and opposite party No. 2 contended that the complainants themselves have contacted Thomas Cook in order to obtain visa and that there is no deficiency of service on their part. The documents filed by the complainants go to show that the opposite party No. 1 arranged the programme and the opposite party No. 3 is being an agent and opposite party No. 2 is an organizer to arrange the programme and the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 have taken different and contradictory stands in order to evade the refund of the amount. The documents filed clearly establish deficiency of service on their part. The order in our opinion is well reasoned order and does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. Hence, both the appeals are devoid of substance and are liable to be dismissed. "

MR. Haksar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that role of the petitioner was to issue confirmed tickets and also to facilitate grant of visa for Holland. Money was paid by the complainants for purchase of tickets to T. T. Travels Pvt. Ltd on the advice of opposite party No. 1 M/s. Elsonic Santo Corporation. No money was paid to the petitioner. As they have issued confirmed tickets and they have discharge their responsibility. They could not facilitate securing visa as required documents reached Mumbai only on 30. 3. 1995 which was Friday. The date of travel was on 2. 4. 1995 and there were intervening holidays on 31. 3. 1995 (Saturday) and 1. 4. 1995 (Sunday) and it was not possible to secure visa in such a short time. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that they were complainants before the District Forum. He drew our attention to the letter addressed to Elsonic Santo Corporation wherein it is mentioned as follows: "your travel agents were supposed to arrange for the post-training tour of Amsterdam, London, Paris, Eurodisney or the whole of Europe for the participants but on approaching, they replied in the negative and were more concerned with the tour of Amsterdam only and washed their hands off the post-training tour of Europe. This resulted in our President applying for visas for the countries all by himself. He had obtained the visas for UK and Germany at Madras and sent his passport with visa application to M/s. Cox and Kings at Bombay by a special courier, which reached them on the morning of 30 March, 95. They still had three clear working days to obtain the visa for Holland. However on the expiry of three days, M/s. Cox and Kings could not get the visa due to usage of out-dated visa application consequent to the introduction of Schengen Territory. From the foregoing, it can be clearly seen that M/s. Cox and Kings have not exercised their professionalism in obtaining the visa to Holland in time for the tour. Thereby the travel plans of our President had to be shelved causing great inconvenience upsetting of business plans and financial loss. "

RECORDS show that the petitioner in the written version before the District Forum have stated that the passport and mediclaim policy was received by the appellant office in Bombay at 1. 35 p. m. Complainant also did not come to Bombay to appear personally before the Visa Officer of the Consulate, even though only one working day was left to catch the flight dated 2. 4. 1995 and that 31. 3. 1995 and 1. 4. 1995 were holidays. The complainants had paid only Rs. 10,000 for providing assistance in confirmation of air tickets and other bookings in Holland and also to facilitate obtaining the visa. Complainant had made payments of Rs. 45,225 + 45,225 = 90,450 to respondent No. 3-M/s. Elsonic Santo Corporation and Rs. 1,04,210 + 76,827 = 1,81. 037 to respondent No. 4 which is T. T. Travels Pvt. Ltd. As the above payments were not made to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for refund of the above amount. The responsibility of the petitioner was to provide confirmed tickets and to facilitate obtaining Schengen visa for Holland. Though it is argued that the records were received on Friday there is no mention of the efforts made by the petitioner to obtain the visa on the day of travel i. e. 2nd April, 2005. It is common knowledge that visa can be obtained in one day also by the tour operators that is why they charge hefty fees. The petitioner has also not contradicted the allegation made in the complaint that out-dated visa forms were given to the complainant by the petitioner. It is not disputed that Rs. 10,000 was collected by the petitioner for providing two services - (i) ensuring confirmation of the tickets as the price of the ticket was paid to M/s. T. T. Travels and (ii) for facilitating the getting of visa. Though the complainants could get confirmed tickets they could not secure the required visa hence they could not travel. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to pay Rs. 5,000 to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the original complainants and their liability is limited to this amount only. The order of the State Commission is modified to that extent qua the petitioner. Rest of the order of the State Commission fixing liability of other parties namely M/s. Elsonic Santo Corporation and M/s. T. T. Travels Pvt. Ltd. is undisturbed. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to cost. R. P. disposed of.