w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Abdul Rahiman Khader v/s Airlines Travels & Haji Umrah & Others

    Revision Petition No. 2486 of 2018 in Appeal No. 829 of 2016

    Decided On, 29 January 2019

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. VISWANATH
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Kapil Chawla, Amicus Curiae. For the Respondents: Nemo.



Judgment Text

C. Viswanath, Presiding Member:

1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in F.A. No. 829/2016 dated 31.5.2018.

2. In the Complaint case it was stated that the Petitioner/Complainant was in search of a person to arrange visa for visiting Kuwait. The Respondents approached the Petitioner to arrange visa on payment of Rs. 23,000. The Respondents also promised to refund the entire amount received on failure of getting visiting visa on any ground within 30 days from the receipt of money. Accordingly on 18.9.2015, the Petitioner paid Rs. 21,000 at the office of the Respondents at Kasargod and the Respondents issued receipt voucher in lieu of it. The Petitioner also agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,000 on receipt of the visiting visa to Kuwait. On 19th October 2015, when the Petitioner approached the Respondents, they expressed their inability to obtain visiting visa to Kuwait and the Petitioner demanded refund of Rs. 21,000.The Respondents, however, refused to refund the said amount. Hence, Complaint was filed by the Petitioner alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.

3. The Complaint was contested by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by filing written statement, in which it was contended that the Respondents were running a travel agency and therefore, bonafidely accepted the request of the Petitioner for arranging visiting visa, after collecting portion of the visa processing charges. The Respondents forwarded papers and passport copy of the Petitioner for stamping, through their main agency at Calicut and after about 10 days the papers were returned with a rejection letter stating that the Petitioner was banned from entering Kuwait, disclosing that action against the Petitioner was imposed on 1999, vide prevention order No. 69902103.In fact the Petitioner must be prosecuted for cheating the Respondents, since the Petitioner suppressed the fact that he was banned from entering Kuwait for life-time.It was submitted that out of Rs. 21,000 collected from the Petitioner, Rs. 8,000 was spent on visa processing charges and the Respondents offered balance amount of Rs. 13,000.The Petitioner, however, was not ready to accept the balance amount. The Complaint is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Forum, vide order dated 26.10.2016, partly allowed the Complaint directing, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to pay Rs. 13,000 to the Petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which Rs. 13,000 would fetch an interest @ 10% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. No order in regard to cost was made. The time for compliance of the said order was 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the Order. The District Forum opined that if the Respondents processed the application for visiting visa, they were entitled for service charges. Respondents have only deducted their service charge of Rs. 8,000, and they were ready to refund the balance amount of Rs.13,000. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents and the Petitioner was not entitled for any compensation or cost as prayed for. The Petitioner is only entitled only for Rs. 13,000.

5. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 31.5.2018, partly allowed the Appeal of the Petitioner stating that District Forum was justified with the true facts of the case or the contentions of the Respondents that there existed a ban over entry of Petitioner to Kuwait. However, the Respondents have not produced any record to support their case that Rs. 8,000 was incurred towards processing charges. The processing charges claimed at Rs. 8,000 were excessive and unreasonable. In their opinion, the Respondents could not have claimed more than Rs. 5,000 towards processing charges. On the basis of the aforesaid observation, the Respondent was entitled to a further refund of Rs. 3,000, as the Respondents had already paid Rs. 13,000 as ordered by the lower Forum. The Respondents were directed to pay Rs. 3,000 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the judgment, failing which it would carry an interest of 10% per annum till realization.

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

7. It was stated by the Petitioner that he is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh in lieu of pain, mental agony and trauma due to the aforesaid issue. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is also suffering from Parkinsons and shivering since 6 years and is under treatment.

8. Heard the Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner. Also perused the evidence available on record and the orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission. It is found that there is no deficiency on the part of the Respondents as it is not the case that due to the act of omission or commission of the Respondents, Petitioner was denied getting visiting visa. Rather in this case, the Petitioner supressed ma

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

terial facts from the Respondents that he was banned from entering Kuwait. The Petitioner has neither denied nor challenged the aforesaid contention of Respondents. Both the Fora below had partly allowed the Complaint of the Petitioner by giving him substantial relief. The Petitioner is not entitled for any more relief, as already granted to him by the State Commission. 9. In view of the above, the present Revision Petition is dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.
O R