The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed a travel agency to refund a sum of ₹1.77 lakh to a Kolkata resident for deficiency in services. The forum also directed the travel agency to pay ₹15,000 to the complainant as charges for harassment and litigation costs.
Shakuntala Dutta had paid ₹1.83 lakh for a trip to Spain and Portugal but could not go on the trip as the travel agency, Cox & Kings, had not submitted her documents on time to the Embassy, delaying her visa. The NCDRC order has upheld the ruling of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Ms. Dutta had alleged that despite paying a substantial amount, the travel agency failed to handover her passport to her even a day before her scheduled date of departure. It was further alleged that on tracking her visa status, she found that her documents were sent to the Embassy only a week prior to the date of departure. The Embassy of Span requires a mandatory 15 days between visa application and issuance.
‘Embassy’s discretion’
The travel agency, in their defence, argued there was no deficiency in services as they were not responsible for issuance of visa. The counsel for the agency argued that “the issue of visa is the discretion of the Embassy concerned and the agency has no control or leverage over the officials of the Embassy.”
Dismissing their arguments, the NCDRC held the agency guilty of deficiency in services as they were the ones processing the booking. “As the opposite party was working as facilitator for the visa, it was its duty to inform the complainant well in time if the visa was not forthcoming. Thus, the opposite party was responsible for delaying the matter at their end.”
The NCDRC held that the agency might have “purposely” delayed conveying the information with the “intention of forfeiting the money”, and said, “As the complainant had booked the tour with the opposite party, they should have monitored the issuance of visa and should have alarmed her at least 4-5 days prior to the date of departure so she could have made her own efforts to get the visa. Clearly, this comes under the purview of unfair trade practice.”
