Mumbai: The South Mumbai district’s consumer dispute redressal commission penalised Thomas Cook, a renowned tour and travel company for failing to repay the money of its customer, whose Europe trip was cancelled because of visa disapproval.
The commission claimed that the complainant had undergone mental agony and depression because of the refusal of their visa leading to cancellation of his foreign tour along with his family members. The commission held that the complainant had to be aptly compensated for this loss.
The commission thus asked the company to return the entire cost of the trip, excluding the visa charges to the complainant. The commission maintained that the entire amount of Rs3.20 lakh excluding Rs34,000 should be paid back to the complainant with 6% interest rate from the year 2014. An additional amount of Rs50,000 and Rs10,000 was also levied on the travel company towards the complainant’s mental agony and litigation cost, respectively.
Sunil Dhakad, a resident of Prabhat colony, Santacruz, had booked the trip and paid extra money for visa procedures. However, just three days before his departure, he received an email from the travel company, informing him that his visa got rejected citing ‘incomplete documents’.
The complainant tried to explain to the travel company that he had applied for a Schengen Visa and not for UK Visa, so there was no reason for his rejection. “The email from the opposite party clearly shows the carelessness and lack of vigilance while carefully following the visa process and because of which the visa was rejected,” the complainant said.
The company however denied the allegations levelled against them and said that the lack of documents was the prime reason, which led to the visa rejection. The Commission held, “Consumers had to be made aware by the company about the possible outcomes of the visa refusals, as the company was authorised to process the same. This must not be the first or the last case, but surprisingly the terms and conditions are silent on this kind of situation.”
The commission further said that the complainant was lacking his knowledge in this travel field, thus they had approached the top travel company to avail their package, “The company had the highest responsibility to address this issue with the utmost care,” held the commission while passing its orders.
