Case Study: SOTC Division of Kuoni Travel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. Thamilvannan 30 September, 2020   

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 2^nd 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.