Revision petition needs new facts

Revision proceedings are maintainable when the forum has violated the principles of natural justice

Kiran Verma had made a booking for herself and her son on a customisable tour called European Bonanza of 12/13 days conducted by MakeMyTrip. The booking was done through its franchisee Domestic International Holiday Consultant. It was represented that the trip would be customised as per Verma’s wish, otherwise the amount would be refunded.

Of the total tour cost of Rs 3,11,400 for two, Verma paid the booking deposit of Rs 60,000. MakeMyTrip was to attend to the visa formalities, and the balance amount of Rs 2,51,400 was payable on receipt of the visa.

After collecting the deposit, MakeMyTrip did not take any steps to apply for the visa, nor did it refund the money. Verma and her son took another tour through another agent. After returning, Verma asked for a refund of the deposit, which the company declined. Verma, therefore, filed a joint complaint against MakeMyTrip and its franchisee.

The tour operator contested the case. Their stand was that the application for the visa was made, but they could not be held liable if the consulate rejected the visa. They pointed out that the Italian Embassy in New Delhi had rejected the visa stating that “the information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of intended stay was not reliable”. But the embassy gave an option to appeal against the decision. It had been intimated to Verma, who did not bother to prefer any appeal. They argued that the travel agent could not be held liable as there was no deficiency in service. They justified the forfeiture of Rs 60,000 as being according to the booking conditions which stipulate that the booking deposit of Rs 30,000 per head was non-refundable. Verma countered this by arguing that MakeMyTrip should have prepared the appeal against the rejection of the visa, and it would be liable for having failed to do so.

After considering the arguments, the forum allowed a refund of the booking deposit of Rs 60,000 along with Rs 10,000 towards compensation. If compliance with the order was delayed beyond 30 days, another Rs 5,000 would have to be paid as costs.

Domestic International Holiday Consultant challenged this order before the Chandigarh State Commission, but the appeal was dismissed. The dispute was then carried in revision by MakeMyTrip. The National Commission observed that both the district forum as well as the state commission had held that there was a deficiency in the service to be rendered by MakeMyTrip. This concurrent finding of deficiency could not be challenged in revision proceedings, especially since the tour did not materialise. Accordingly, by its order of December 1, 2017 delivered by the Bench of Justice DK Jain and M Shreesha, the National Commission dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order in Kiran's favour. However, whether such forfeiture of the amount was legally permissible or not was left open.

Thus, revision proceedings are maintainable when the forum has transgressed its jurisdiction or violated the principles of natural justice, but concurrent findings of fact cannot be questioned in revision.

(The author is a consumer activist)