The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mominabad, Srinagar, has directed a travel service provider to pay Rs 2.09 lakh to a pilgrim after the company accepted his advance payment for a Hajj package but failed to secure a visa, holding it guilty of unfair trade practice and deficient service.
What Was the Issue?
The complainant told the commission that he approached Albalaagh Tours and Travels in 2011 after seeing the company's advertisements for Hajj services in local newspapers. He opted to perform Hajj in 2012 and paid an advance of Rs 2,45,000 to the firm. He was then told to complete his preparations for departure, scheduled for October 20, 2012.
However, the firm failed to obtain his visa. With no visa in hand even by October 17, 2012, the complainant and several other affected pilgrims filed an FIR against the firm. Subsequently, the police sealed its office, and the Hajj pilgrimage was cancelled altogether.
The complainant argued that the firm had cheated him and kept his hard-earned money. The two sides later signed a settlement on May 4, 2013, under which the firm agreed to repay the whole amount in installments, but only Rs 48,264 was paid back. After that, the complainant approached the consumer commission, demanding a refund of the remaining Rs 1,96,735, compensation for mental pain, agony, and harassment, along with litigation costs.
The travel service provider filed a written reply stating that the firm had not deviated from the terms of the booking and that its Delhi office was working on the visas when the pilgrims approached the police, which led to the office being sealed and the process being disrupted. He also argued that the complainant had himself violated the 2013 settlement by pursuing criminal cases against the firm.
What Did the Commission Say?
The bench, comprising President Dr Farah Deeba and Member Ms Shabnum Munshi, said the complainant's statement, along with proof like the newspaper ads, the 2013 settlement, and the power of attorney, was enough to prove his case. However, the commission found that the evidence only supported an advance of Rs 1,00,000, not the Rs 2,45,000 he had claimed.
The firm had argued that the criminal and civil cases filed by the complainant got in the way of the refund. The commission rejected this, pointing out that these cases were already there before the 2013 settlement was signed, so they could not count as a breach of it.
"Therefore, in view of the preceding discussions, OP1 is not only held liable of indulging in unfair trade practice for rendering deficient services towards the complainant. It is also acknowledged that due to such acts of the OP1 complainant has suffered mental pain, agony, harassment and financial loss," the commission noted.
The commission ordered the travel service provider to refund Rs 1,00,000 to the complainant (minus the Rs 48,264 already paid back), pay another Rs 1,00,000 as compensation for the pain, agony, harassment and financial loss, and pay Rs 9,000 for litigation costs, taking the total payout to Rs 2.09 lakh.
The firm has thirty days from receiving the certified order to pay up. If it does not, the refund and compensation amounts will start collecting 12 percent interest every year until paid.
