EKIDO TOURS And TRAVELS vs GURDIAL BHASIN

THIS is an appeal filed against order dated 25.9.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 142 of 2001.

THE respondents Shri Gurdial Bhasin, his wife Smt. Satish Bhasin and his daughter Ms. Puja Bhasin contacted M/s. Grant Travels for visiting Dubai to witness and participate in Dubai Festival held from 1.3.2001 to 31.3.2001. M/s. Grand Travels informed Shri Gurdial Bhasin that it would get them only unconfirmed tickets reserved, which will have to be confirmed only after they had procured visa and the arrangement for their stay in a hotel at Dubai. M/s. Grand Travels informed Sh. Gurdial Bhasin that they would make an effort in this regard but were not assured whether they could be able to arrange a visa and stay in hotel. It was, at this stage, that Sh. Gurdial Bhasin contacted the appellant M/s. Ekido Tours and Travels, SCO No. 122-123 (Basement). Sector 8-C, Chandigarh which gave Sh. Gurdial Bhasin a positive assurance that they could definitely arrange for visa and their stay at Dubai and asked Sh. Gurdial Bhasin to pay a sum of Rs. 14,000/-. A sum of Rs. 14,000/- was paid by the respondents/complainants vide receipt No. 1548 of 10.3.2001. It was next alleged that the appellant also assured the complainants that they would get the tickets arranged for them. The air tickets to Dubai were available for the flight leaving India at 5.50 a.m. on 21.3.2001. The appellant/O.P., however, failed to arrange visa and their stay in a hotel at Dubai till 20.3.2001 and as such the complainants could not get the tickets confirmed. The complainants, in the meantime, obtained "Immigration Clearance Not Required" endorsement on their respective passports made by Passport Authorities. The complainants intended to stay in Dubai for four nights. The complainants visited the office of the appellant/O.P. to find out whether visa had been arranged and whether the arrangement for stay in Dubai had been made but they learnt that the Proprietor/Managing Director of the appellant/O.P. had left for Mauritius and left a message for the complainants that they could contact their Ludhiana office. The Ludhiana office, on being so contacted, informed the complainants that necessary arrangements for Sh. Gurdial Bhasin and party could not be made as visas could not be arranged and arrangement for their stay at Dubai could not also be made.

The appellant/O.P., it was further alleged, did not refund the amount of Rs. 14,000/-, which had been paid by the complainants. Alleging these acts and omissions amounting to deficiency in service, the complaint was filed. The complainant sought refund of Rs. 14,000/- with 18% interest w.e.f. 10.3.2001 to the actual date of payment. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of getting clearance from Passport Office, various visits to the office of appellant/O.P. and the telephone calls made to the office of the appellant/O.P. in Chandigarh as well as Ludhiana and compensation of a sum of Rs. 1 lac to each of the complainant have been claimed.

THE O.Ps. appeared before the District Forum and filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the complaint case and alleging that the complaint was abuse of the process of the law as the complainants had been guilty of making concealment of material facts. It was mentioned that on 9.3.2001, Shri Gurdial Bhasin approached the O.Ps. and expressed his interest in visiting Dubai. After initial discussion, Shri Gurdial Bhasin showed interest in a five-night package at hotel Admiral Plaza at Dubai marketed by M/s. Cox and Kings (India) Limited, which was available subject to the terms and conditions and booking conditions of the said company to the prospective tourist duly filling in the relevant booking form. As per the terms and conditions and booking conditions, the prospective client had to complete the booking form and pay the interest-free deposit of Rs. 5,000/- per person to be finally adjusted in tour cost and then only the contract comes into existence. THE complainants wanted to visit Dubai and they were required to pay Rs. 15,000/- but they paid Rs. 14,000/. THE balance amount of Rs. 1,000/- was not paid by them. THE O.P. contended that there was never a contract between the complainants and M/s. Cox and Kings (India) Limited or the O.Ps. in respect of the land arrangements at Dubai but even the O.P. processed their case for the grant of visa in good faith and with bona fide intention to make the best possible efforts. The O.P. further pleaded that Shri Gurdial Bhasin had told them that the air tickets to and fro Dubai would be arranged by him. The O.P. was a General Sales Agent of M/s. Cox and Kings (India) Limited who was to process their case with Dubai Embassy for grant of visa and the complainant was also shown the other terms and conditions of booking and he agreed to abide by the same. The visa for Dubai could be obtained only by a recognized/authorised agent based in Dubai and no other person or persons outside Dubai can seek the same by approaching the issuing authorities without going through such local agent. The role of the appellant/answering O.P. was only limited to the forwarding of the necessary documents to M/s. Cox and Kings (India) Limited who would further forward the same to M/s. World of Events, the organisation at Dubai that would in turn take the necessary steps to seek Dubai visa. A fax message dated 9.3.2001 along with the particulars of the complainant was sent. It was further contended that no outside agency from India could directly approach the Immigration Authorities in Dubai and issuance of visa is the sole prerogative of the concerned Government and as such no assurance could be given regarding the grant of visa.

THE O.Ps., it was alleged, acted in good faith and forwarded the necessary papers of the complainants for grant of visa to the local agent in Dubai on 10.3.2001 and it was further contended that due to extraordinary rush of applicants from all over the world seeking visas through various local agents the Emigration Office at Dubai did not grant the visa to the complainants. THE respondent informed Shri Gurdial Bhasin requesting him to collect the entire amount of Rs. 14,000/- paid by him, which he did not do. The District Forum held that the O.P. had given assurance to the complainants about the procuring of Dubai visa and for making arrangements for their stay in a hotel at Dubai and for arranging air tickets for them and since they failed to do so, there was deficiency in service on their part. The complaint was allowed to the extent that the O.Ps. were directed to refund Rs. 14,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from 10.3.2001 till payment to Ms. Puja Bhasin, complainant No. 3. The O.P. was also directed to pay Rs. 14,000/- as compensation to the complainants for physical harassment @ 100% of the amount, which the O.P. had received from the complainants for promises of providing service to them, which they subsequently failed to do. Rs. 1,000/- were awarded as costs of litigation. Mr. Sukant Prabhakar, Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that grant of visa is the sole discretion of the Government of the country where one wants to visit and no person or party can make an assurance about procuring the visa for the complainant/consumer. Mr. Sukant Prabhakar, Advocate relied on the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the National Commission] in the case of Purana Sahakari Shakar Karkhana Pravheni v. Tatyarao Ramarao Kate Pravheni, II (1994) CPJ 107 (NC)=1995 (2) CON.LT 462. In para 4, the Hon''ble National Commission, observed, inter alia, as under: "4. Though on a consideration of the materials produced before us, we are inclined to take the view that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been made out in respect of the procuring of the visas to U.S.A. and Mexico we are not called upon to go in-depth into the said aspect of the case inasmuch as no appeal has been preferred by opposite party..."

IN the instant case also, the stand taken by the appellant/O.P. is clear and categorical that the appellant/O.P. being the General Sales Agent of M/s. Cox and Kings (INdia) Limited could not assure for the grant of visa as the issuance of visa is the sole prerogative of the concerned Government. It has been further mentioned that the application for seeking Dubai visa can be made only by a local agent from them and no outside agency from INdia could directly approach the Immigration Authorities in Dubai. It was also categorically mentioned that the O.P. acted in good faith and sent all necessary papers of the complainants to the local agent at Dubai on 10.3.2001 through fax and annexed a copy of the fax as Annexure C-4. It was further mentioned in the reply of the appellant/O.P. that due to extraordinary rush of applicants from all over the world seeking visas through various local agents the Immigration office at Dubai, which had the sole discretion to grant visa, did not grant the visa to the respondents/complainants and the appellant had no role to play insofar as the grant of visa by the Dubai authorities is concerned.

THE appellant/O.P. processed the case of the complainant with due diligence but still visa could not be granted to the complainants. THE stand taken by the appellant/O.P. is in conformity with law as laid down by the Hon''ble National Commission in the case of Purana Sahakari Shakar Karkhana, Pravheni (supra). THEre can be no dispute to the proposition of law that issuance of the visa is the sole prerogative of the concerned Government and no other person or party can give any assurance about obtaining the visa. THE only role which any service provider can perform is to process the papers of the consumer and forward the same for the consideration of the application for grant of visa to the concerned Government. THE appellant/O.P. could not have thus given any assurance about the grant of visa by the concerned Government of Dubai. It could not be challenged successfully by the respondents/complainants that only the local agent in Dubai could contact the concerned Immigration Authorities in Dubai for the grant of visa. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, took a view contrary to the law laid down by the Hon''ble National Commission and in completely ignoring this aspect of the matter. The complainants, undoubtedly, are entitled to the refund of the amount, which according to the appellant/O.P., was offered to be refunded through telephone. The respondents/complainants had disputed this aspect of the defence set up by the appellant/O.P. We find that the District Forum has rightly allowed the relief of refund of Rs. 14,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum w.e.f. 10.3.2001 till payment but committed an error in awarding compensation to the complainants.

Resultantly, the appeal succeeds partly and the order of the District Forum is set aside insofar as the award of compensation is concerned and the complaint in respect thereof is dismissed. The other order regarding the refund of an amount of Rs. 14,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum, as mentioned above, w.e.f. 10.3.2001 till payment and the costs of litigation is confirmed. The order of the District Forum, as modified by this order, shall be complied with by the appellant/O.P. within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal partly allowed.