Monika Mukherjee Verified
Lets understand the use of law together.
Follow
Facts:-
This
is the third revision petitions, in which the Respondents planned to visit
Germany and for the same purpose, they made payment of Rs.71,000/- per person
to the petitioner company, SOTC Division of Kuoni Travel Pvt. Ltd.. The German
consulate denied there visa and the Respondents were informed about
cancellation of the tour package at 12 am on 2nd of October, 2009
and they were scheduled to leave for Germany on 3rd of October, 2009. The
complainants/ respondents move toward the petitioner company for the refund of
the amount, which they paid for the purpose of their tour. The petitioner
company rejected their request of refund of the amount and said that under the
terms and conditions informed at the time of booking, the entire amount paid by
them stood forfeited. Being aggrieved by the decision of SOTC Division of Kuoni
Travel Pvt. Ltd., the complainants move toward to the District Forum by way of
separate complaints and the District Forum decided and directed the petitioner
company to refund the amount of Rs.71,000/- each to the complainants along with
Rs.25,000/- as the amount of compensation and Rs.2,000/- each as costs of
litigation. The petitioner company, then approached the State Commission which
was dismissed. Then the Petitioner Company, SOTC Division of Kuoni Travel Pvt.
Ltd. filed Revision Petitions
challenging the State Commission’s order and the same also dismissed.
Issues
raised:-
Whether
there was any insufficiency and lack on the part of the petitioner company in
execution of services to the complainant in association with their application
for grant of visa by the Embassy of Germany?
Sections
referred under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:-
a) Sections
2(1) (g), (o), (r)
b) Section
19
c) Section
21(b)
Judgement:-
The
State Commission held that the petitioner company, SOTC Division of Kuoni
Travel Pvt. Ltd. was clearly lacking in
rendering facilities and services to the complainant/ respondents and in fact,
the petitioner company was also indulged in unfair practice by accepting the
money from the respondent at such a time when they knew that they had almost no
chance of getting visa for travelling to Germany.
Therefore,
the State Commission confirmed the orders of the District Forum and the revised
petition dismissed.
Accept
Reject
