Haj Committee of India vs Mohd. Ahsan Reza, Ips and others

This first appeal has beer filed by Haj Committee of India, appellant against the order dated 7.9.2009 of the A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, (in short ''the State Commission''), passed in CD No. 62 of 2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the month of June, 2006, the respondents responded to the advertisement published by the appellant and applied for Haj Pilgrimage 2006-II AD vide their separate applications along with application money on 25.6.2009 and opted category III accommodation for their stay during Haj at the Holy Makkah and Madina which was however, subsequently upgraded to category I on the request of the respondents. The complainants could not be provided the category I accommodation and they were provided category III accommodation. Aggrieved by the downgrading of the accommodation. The complainants filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 for down grading their accommodation in Saudi Arabia, which they had booked for Haj pilgrimage. The complaint was resisted by the appellant on the ground that opposite party was a statutory body and was responsible for making arrangements from India, however, the opposite party had no control over the arrangements being made in Saudi Arabia, which are finalised by the Consul General of India at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia The State Commission decided the complaint vide its order dated 7.9.2009 as under- "In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are hereby directed with joint and several liability to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 to each of the three complainants for causing physical suffering and mental agony. So also to pay a sum of Rs. 5000 towards legal expenses within a period 30 days from the date of receipt of this order." 3. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. The respondents did not appear despite notice and they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 9.12.2014 of this Commission. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant stated that the Haj Committee of India has been constituted under Haj Committee Act of 2002 and duties of the appellant are stated in Section 9 of the said Act. The main function of the Haj Committee is to facilitate the Haj pilgrimage of Indian Nationals. In the instant case, the appellant received a fax message from the office of Consul General of India dated 13.12.2006 under signature of Dr. Ausaf Sayeed Consul General communicating on the accommodation position in the Makkah. It was communicated that there was an acute shortage of the accommodation in the categories I & II, therefore the pilgrims of categories I and II would only be accommodated in Azizia/AQ. The Haj Committee was requested to suitably brief the pilgrims before embarkation so as to avoid any problem and which was accordingly done by the appellant. Due to acute shortage of accommodation in category I & II many pilgrims including the respondents were provided accommodation in the Sheesha area in category III. The list of such pilgrims whose accommodation was downgraded, was sent to the Haj Committee of India Mumbai for making necessary refund of excess deposit wherein the respondents were also included and accordingly refund of Rs. 78,498.00 was made to the respondents. 6. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the ultimate authority in India is the Consulate General of India, who is responsible for the arrangements made for the Haj pilgrims in the territory of KINGDOM of SAUDI ARABIA. The Haj Committee of India is constituted only to facilitate and act as a channel between the person desirous of performing Haj and the Consulate General of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India. 7. The learned Counsel further mentioned that along with the said applications the revisionist also circulated a detailed guidelines to be adhered to, by all the applicants desirous for Haj and along with the guidelines and the application a solemn declaration is also signed by each applicant. The learned Counsel drew our attention to the salient features of the guidelines and declaration with regard to the accommodation facility for the applicants which are reproduced below: "10. I understand that the Haj Committee of India''s area of functioning is continued/confined to India only. I would, therefore, not blame the Haj Committee for any incidental problems in Saudi Arabia. 11. I am aware of the topography of Makkah Mukarramah and the difficulties that pilgrims may face during the days in respect of the accommodation. I fully understand that the Haj Committee of India has no control in Saudi Arabia and for any inconvenience, I will not unnecessary blame the Haj Committee of India, Mumbai. 14. I fully understand that due to prevalent circumstances in Makkah Mukarramah, it is possible that accommodation in the category opted for may not be available and I may be allotted accommodation in different category (higher or lower). In such circumstances I will not claim any punitive claim/damage against the Haj Committee of India or Consulate General of India, Jeddah or the Govt of India and I will pay the excess amount, if any, payable by me in case of allotment of accommodation in higher category or accept the lower category of accommodation and refund of the difference of amount on account of lower category. 15. I also understand that in case of non availability of requisite number of accommodation units in the category I/Category II, the accommodation may be provided in Sheesha area and the refund of the differential amount paid by Haj Committee of India, subsequently, I further understand that category III and Sheesha are interchangeable." 8. The learned Counsel finally submitted that based on the clear guidelines and the declaration/undertaking signed by the complainants, no liability can be fastened to the appellant. The State Commission has not appreciated the role of the appellant and has wrongly found deficiency on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the learned Counsel prayed for acceptance of the appeal. 9. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant and have examined the record. It is seen from the record that the complainants opted for category (III) accommodation as given in the application form, but later on changed to category (I) accommodation, which could not be provided by Consul General of Indian Mission at Jeddah. As there was shortage of category (I) accommodation, the complainants could not be accommodated with such option and finally the complainants were provided category (III) accommodation for which they had originally applied. The appellant has also refunded the difference between charges of accommodation of category (I) and category (III). The appellant is a statutory body working under the Haj Committee Act, 2002 and its main work is to facilitate the Haj pilgrimage for Indian Nationals. Obviously, its jurisdiction is only within India. It cannot be held responsible for any act or omission happening outside India and particularly in the light of the guidelines and undertaking given by the complainants along with the application form. From the guidelines and undertaking, it is amply clear that complainants were informed of the fact that there may be downgrading or upgrading of accommodation based on the availability there. As the complainants had accepted the terms and conditions and have signed the undertaking, no liability can be attached to the appellant for making available a downgraded accommodation to the complainants. 10. Based on the above examination, we are of the view that no deficiency is proved against the appellant/opposite party, Haj Committee of India in the present case and the State Commission has not appreciated correctly the petitioner''s role in facilitating the Haj pilgrimage. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant, Haj Committee of India, FA No. 149 of 2010 is allowed and order dated 7.9.2009 of the State Commission is set aside. Consequently, the complaint also stands dismissed. Appeal allowed