CWP No. 19197 of 2010. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 19197 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 05th January, 2011. Cox & Kings Ltd. Petitioner through Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate Versus Permanent Lok Adalat & Ors. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This Civil Writ Petition seeks quashing of the award-cum- order dated 02.06.2010 [Annexure P-1] passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat [Public Utility Services], Ferozepur whereby an application moved by the second respondent for the refund of ` 5,84,461/-has been allowed to the extent that the petitioner Company has been direct to refund `3,69,000/- along with interest @9% per annum. [2]. The afore-stated order has been passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat on an application moved by respondent No. 2 under Section 22-A[b][i] of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for settling the dispute pertaining to Transport Services. [3]. Respondent No. 2 is a Surgeon by profession and is a retired Senior Medical Officer. He along with his wife – Swaran Kaur Sauna and their son Gagandeep Sauna intended to visit abroad and came across a scheme known as 'Coast to Coast' floated by the petitioner Company/local agent–respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 CWP No. 19197 of 2010. ::-2-:: and his family decided to avail the advertised tour programme and they contacted the local agent on 24.04.2008 and thereafter deposited the agreed amount of ` 5,88,461/- for taking them for the 'Coast to Coast' tour. The said amount was paid by respondent No. 2 through various cheques drawn on ICICI Bank, Ferozepur. [4]. Respondent No. 2, his wife and son were having valid Passports and they were asked to apply for American Visa through the petitioner Company, which was though granted to the wife of respondent No.2, but was denied to their son - Gagandeep Sauna on 26.06.2008. The visa-application of respondent No. 2 was kept pending by the US Embassy. Meanwhile, the departure date of the tour, i.e., 18.07.2008 arrived, however, the Visa request of the son of respondent No. 2 having been declined and his own Visa application having been kept pending that the family could not depart abroad. Respondent No.2 accordingly demanded the refund of amount paid in advance. The petitioner Company vide letter dated 09.10.2008 refunded a sum of `1,55,461/- only and withheld the substantial part. The petitioner Company thereafter sent a registered letter dated 13.10.2008 informing respondent No. 2 that “without prejudice to our rights aforesaid and without entering into the merits of the case, in goodwill gesture, we provide you a credit note of `2,36,802/- which could be utilized by you in your future tour programme”. The letter further recited that respondent No. 2 could “utilise this credit note for any of our “Dunia Dekho” group tour or flexi hols, fit tours which were to be booked before December 31, 2009 and the same can not be utilized in conjunction with any other promotional offer of the company”. It was in these circumstances that respondent No. 2 CWP No. 19197 of 2010. ::-3-:: approached the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of his dispute. [5]. The petitioner and its local agent contested the claim of the second respondent and maintained that it was clearly stipulated in the Rules regarding 'how to book the tour' and the terms and conditions that there was no obligation for the petitioner Company to arrange Visa as it was for respondent No. 2 and his family members to hold and carry all the valid travel documents including Airline tickets, service vouchers, passports etc. It was claimed that as per the 'terms and conditions', the Company was entitled to deduct 100% of the tour cost from the traveller if the tour was cancelled within less than two clear working days from the date of departure of the tour. It was pleaded that respondent No. 2 and his family were liable to pay `4,08,654/- towards the tour cost. [6]. The impugned award reveals and is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that efforts were made for the amicable settlement of the dispute but finding no possibility that the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to decide the dispute in exercise of its powers under Section 22[c][8] of the Act. [7]. The Permanent Lok Adalat in its self-explanatory and self- speaking order dated 02.06.2010 has held as follows:- “30. “Booking Form 2008” filed in by the applicant on 26.4.2008, shows that he had handed-over the passports to respondent NO. 1 on 26.4.2008 which were returned to him through some Gurpinder Singh along with a cheque of Rs.155461/- by the latter. Thus, the Passports of the applicant, his wife and son were already in possession of the respondents which were also valid as per “Booking CWP No. 19197 of 2010. ::-4-:: Form 2008”. Therefore, one condition for going on the tour had been fulfilled by the applicant, his wife and son on the very first days, when the applicant had booked the tour on 26.4.2008. xx xx 32. Therefore, it was the unfair trade practice. Therefore, the applicant, his wife and son can not be allowed to be subject to the oppressive provisions of cancellation charges. Thus, there is a force in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that in addition to earning profit, by organizing tours and respondents are also extorting money from the public by applying the oppressive and penal clauses of cancellation charges schedule referred to above. Therefore, the respondents can not charge cancellation charges more than Rs.60,000”. [Emphasis applied]. [8]. Consequently, the Permanent Lok Adalat has directed refund of the balance amount of ` 3,69,000/- along with interest @9% per annum. [9]. The aggrieved petitioner Company has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at some length and the records perused. In my considered view, no case to interfere with the impugned Award in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The Permanent Lok Adalat appears to be right in holding that the so-called contract between the parties relied upon by the petitioner is unconscionable as it contains all possible oppressive clauses to deny lawful and legitimate claims of a traveller inasmuch as it goes to the extent of “forfeiture of deposits in the event of non-visit by a traveller due to sickness, death or loss of passport or any other document”. CWP No. 19197 of 2010. ::-5-:: [11]. The objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat at Ferozepur though strenuously urged has been rightly rejected by the Lok Adalat as the cause of action admittedly arose in favour of respondent No. 2 at Ferozepur where the impugned communication was sent and received by him. Thirdly, the terms and conditions of the tour sought to be relied upon by the petitioner were not widely circulated or published while giving attractive offers like 'Coast to Coast' tours. Respondent No. 2 was never informed that the obtaining of Visa was his own responsibility. In fact, respondent No. 2 and his family was asked to apply for American Visa through the petitioner Company which clearly suggests that the responsibility to secure Visa was of the petitioner Company only. In any case, one can not visit abroad in the absence of valid Visa or lawful exemption and in the absence of the Visa, there could be no final contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. It was, at the best, a case of contingent contract subject to the grant of valid Visa to respondent No. 2 and his family members by the foreign embassy. Strangely, the petitioner wants to suggest as if not only the valid Visa or other original travelling documents even other arrangements like emigration clearance, confirmed air tickets, confirmed insurance to risk, life and property, medical clearance, vaccination certificates etc. were also the sole responsibility of the tourist[s]. It is for the petitioner to explain as to for what purpose then such hefty charges are extracted from the tourists without providing any tangible service or facility to the tourists. In such state of affairs, the Permanent Lok Adalat appears to be right in holding that the petitioner Company indulged in unfair CWP No. 19197 of 2010. ::-6-:: trade practice and respondent No. 2 or his family members can not be allowed to be subjected to oppressive conditions like cancellation charges. [12]. No case to interfere with the impugned Award-cum-order dated 02.06,.2010 by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is made out. Dismissed. January 05, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE