INDO SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVELS) PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THALLAPALLI RAVINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the opposite party in CC No. 531/2007 before the District Forum III, Hyderabad against whom an order dated 19th September, 2007 was passed directing payment of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the respondent/complainant with costs of Rs.2000/- on the ground of deficiency in service and the order is assailed as erroneous on question of fact and law.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that he is an Engineer working in Saudi Arabia since 06.10.1995 till 2007. He used to visit twice a year to look after his family members. The complainant visited India from Saudi Arabia in the month of February, 2007 and his employer issued exit and re-entry Visa from 24.01.2007 to 12.05.2007. The complainant approached the opposite party for booking ticket to Saudi Arabia. On the date of booking the ticket, he was unwell. So he enquired the opposite aprty about getting extension of Visa after its lapse. The opposite party gave a proforma and connected papers to be filled in to apply for Visa extension and the complainant furnished all the required papers. The complainant applied to his employer seeking Visa extension who sent the same. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1000/- to the opposite party for processing Visa extension papers. Visa extension was given by the concerned Consulate on 15.05.2007 by extending it up ;to 21.5.2007. As the date of re-entry was fast approaching, the complainant made several calls to the opposite party to know the position and visited its office. The persons in the office did not give any response. The concerned official was out of station on 21.05.2007. The opposite party handed over his pass port along with Visa extension on 22.05.2007 of which time Visa extension had expired. The opposite party was quite aware of it and also aware about the period of Visa extension which may be done in three days or one week depending on the period of Residence Visa of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Residence Visa was valid up to 24.05.2007. Because of the negligence attitude of the opposite party,. the complainant lost his job and he could not join duty to proceed to Saudi Arabia on the last date of deadline of re-entry given in the Visa. The opposite party has exploited the complainant and thereby he suffered mental trauma. The complainant was drawing 43,000 Riyals per month and he had to get service benefits of Rs.10 lakhs which he lost it. The family members are depending on the earnings of the complainant. On account of loss sustained by him, the opposite parties are liable to indemnify the loss to a tune of Rs.15 lakhs which may be granted in his favour.

(3.) The opposite party in its version has put the complainant to strict proof of the allegations made against the opposite party. it is stated that the opposite party undertakes only Travels services and it will not undertake any employment visa or re-entry extension visa which is also admitted by the complainant in his pleadings. The complainant failed to mention the time and date of approaching of the opposite party. For getting re-entry Visa extension, sympathizing with the complainant , the opposite party had obliged to process the extension of Visa from the concerned Consulate which is situate at Bombay. The opposite party had asked the complainant to furnish details about the date of his re-entry. The complainant did not give any reply when it was asked for . The opposite party had received courier shipment of the complainants pass port and Visa endorsement on 21.05.2007 and on the next day, i.e., on 22.05.2007 the complainant had approached and the same was handed over to him. The delay in receipt of the courier shipment is also explained. The complainant was satisfied that there was no fault on the part of the opposite party and that the delay was by DTDC courier. Subsequently there was no contact with the complainant and the opposite party had no information till the notice was received from the District Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that the opposite party had obliged to process the obligation on sympathetic grounds. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.