F.A.No.719 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.101 OF 2011 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM SRIKAKULAM

Between:          

1.     Good Will Holidays, Rep.by its Proprietor,

        Syed Hamid Abbas,

        Travel Agents and Tour Operators, No.302,

         2^nd Floor,

         R/o.H.No.10-5-41/2/C, First Floor,

2.     Syed Hamid Abbas,

        H.No.10-5-41/1/2/C, First Floor,

        Hyderabad.                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

1.             Aged 21 years,

2.             Age 21 years,

3.    

        Age 21 years,

4.    

        Age 22 years,

5.             Age 21 years,

6.             Aged 21 years,

7.    

        Age 21 years,

8.             Age 21 years,

9.              Age 20 years,

10.            Age 23 years,

11.            Age 22 years,

12.            Age 21 years,

13.            Age 21 years,

14.            Age 20 years

15.            Age 20 years,

16.            Age 21 years,  

17.            Age 20 years,

18.   

        Age 22 years,

19.            Age 22years,  

20.            Age 22years,  

21.            Age 21 years,  

22.            Age 21 years,  

23.            Age 20 years,  

24.            Age 21 years,  

25.            Age 21 years,  

26.            Age 21 years,  

27.           Age 21 years,  

28.            Age 22 years,  

29.            Age 21 years,  

30.            Age 20 years,

31.             Age 22 years,

32.            Age 21 years,

33.            Age 21 years,

34.            Age 22 years,  

35.            Age 22 years,  

36.            Age 21 years,  

37.    Data

        Age 22 years,  

38.            Age 22 years,  

39.            Age 20 years,  

40.            Age 20 years,  

41.            Age 21 years,  

42.            Age 22 years,  

43.            Age 21 years,  

44.            Age 21 years,  

45.    Jada         Aged 22 years,  

46.            Aged 21 years,  

47.            Aged 21 years,  

48.            Aged 20 years,  

49.            Aged 21 years,  

50.            Aged 21 years,  

51.            Aged 21 years,  

52.            Aged 21 years,  

53.   

        Aged 21 years,  

54.            Aged 21 years,  

55.            age 22 years,

56.   

      Aged 21 years,  

57.   

        Aged 20 years,  

58.            Aged 20 years,  

59.   

        Aged 20 years,  

60.            Aged 22 years,  

61.   

        Aged 21 years,  

62.             Aged 21 years,  

63.            Aged 21 years,  

64.            Aged 20 years,   

65.            Aged 21 years,   

66.   

        Aged 22 years,

67.            Aged 21 years,  

68.            Aged 21 years,  

69.            Aged 22 years,  

70.   

        Aged 22 years,  

        All are 3^rd Year MBBS Students
        of Rajiv Institute of Medical Sciences
       

espondents/Complainants

Counsel for the Appellant              M/s DVSS Counsel for the Respondent           M/s  

  QUORUM:        SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HONLE MEMBER

                                                &

                        SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONLE MEMBER

                    MONDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST

TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

                 Oral Order per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
                                                   ***

1.             The opposite parties are the appellants.

2.             The respondents filed complaint claiming each refund of `2,000/- and a sum of `10,000/- per each respondent towards compensation besides costs of `20,000/-.

3.             The respondents at the relevant time   pursuing MBBS second year at RIMS   The trip was for a period of 17 days and it comprised places in North India commencing from Agra to be visited on 19.09.2010 till 20.10.2010 with New Delhi as the last place of the trip. The respondents submitted that as per the agreement each of them has to pay a sum of `10,200/- in five `2

4.             The respondents submitted that the appellants arranged accommodation and buses at Agra from 19.09.2010 till 22.09.2010 and the  appellants provided non-a/c bus beyond schedule time at 3 P.M. on 23.09.2010 for sight-seeing at New Delhi. The agent of the appellants,

5.             The respondents submitted that the appellantsagent, `13,600/- towards lodge bill and a sum of `15,000/- on 2.10.2010 towards transportation charges from Shimla to New Delhi.

6.             The respondents demanded the appellants to refund an amount of `2,000/- to each of them towards the amount relating to places skipped from the viz., `1,000/- to each of the respondents and a sum of `13,600/- paid by the respondents as room rent at Shimla. The respondents did not agree to the proposal of the appellants and the appellants agreed to pay an amount of `1,53,600/-which the appellants failed to pay as a result of which the respondents got issued notice dated 15.12.2010 demanding for an amount of `10,000/- plus `2,000/- to each of them.

7.             The appellants resisted the claim on the premise that it was agreed that the appellants are not responsible in case any part of the itinerary is not covered due to late running of trains, strike or political disturbance, accident, th September to 30^th September there occurred heavy rains in different parts of the country, viz.,   some persons lost their life.  On account of

8.             The amount of `38,000/- was not   towards transport charges as the buses could not go to `9,500/- for local visits on the 4^th October and a sum of `5,200/- for transportation charges till the Railway Station and the appellants saved an amount of `23,300/- because of skipping the aforementioned places and the appellants provided extra accommodation for one night at Shimla and three nights at New Delhi.  The room rent was high due to conducting of commonwealth games and it was `750/- per day at `1500/- per day at New Delhi and the appellants had also provided food and accommodation to the appellants during the entire duration of the trip.

9.             The appellants submitted that the disappointment of the respondents for not visiting some places can be understood and that the places could not be visited in the circumstances beyond the control of the appellants and there was no any intention for the appellants to skip any place mentioned in the itinerary. The appellants are in the tourism business for 35 years without any remark and they successfully had completed the trip of the students of `1,000/- to each of the respondents. It is contended that the amount claimed by the respondents is abnormal and exorbitant.

10.            The 6^th respondent filed affidavit and the documents  On behalf of the appellants, the appellant no.2 filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.B1 to B9.

11.            The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the appellants failed to prove that there was bad weather prevailing at   during the 24^th September to 30^th September and the respondents felt insecure when the agent of the appellants left them to their fate at a new place. The District Forum awarded an amount of `2,000/- and `5,000/- a total sum of `7,000/- to each of the respondents.

12.            Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have filed appeal contending that the District Forum has not considered the evidence placed on record and failed to appreciate that the appellants are not responsible if any part of tour itinerary is not concluded due to natural calamity. It is contended that the District Forum failed to consider ExB3 which indicates floods at the relevant time at some of the places of itinerary. It is contended that the District Forum awarded the amount not basing on any evidence.

13.            The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law?

14.            The appellants engaged in tourism business entered into agreement with the respondents for the respondents7 days trip in North-India commencing from Agra on 19.9.2010 and concluding   5.10.2010 at New-Delhi. The respondents contend that they were not shown certain places such as

         Dated                                                 Places

19.09.2010                                          Agra

20.09.2010                                          21.09.2010                                          Jaipur

22.09.2010                                          Delhi

23.09.2010                                          Delhi

24.09.2010                                          25.09.2010                                          26.09.2010                                          Dehra Dun

27.09.2010                                                      28.09.2010                                          Shimla

29.09.2010                                          30.09.2010                                         

01.10.2010                                         

02.10.2010                                                                                                                  factory in
                                                                        03.10.2010                                          04.10.2010                                          Chandigarh

05.10.2010                                          Delhi

06.10.2010                                          Drop Group to

15.            Each of the respondents agreed to pay a sum of `10,200/- towards the tour expenses to the appellants. The respondents paid an amount of `6 to the appellants.  There is no dispute of the fact that the respondent did not visit Chandigarh and th September to 30^th September the places could not be visited. There is no denial of the fact by the respondents.  ExB6 to B9 reflect the places at   Relevant matter from Exs.B6 to B9 is excerpted herein below:

Uttarakhand bore the brunt of nature's wrath in the form on flood but it failed to dampen massesspirit, says P.S. Indeed, when nature turns violent then human have to where to run and hide. And the same was experienced by the people of The state has so far recorded the cumulative rainfall of 1675 mm. as against the average annual rainfall of 1163. Floods, cloudbursts and landslides, left behind a trail of wide spread devastation of human life, property and ecology.(Ex.B6)

Almora/Moradabad: Uttarakhand has seen its worst flood in years. Major rivers in the state are flowing above the danger mark and in the last four days, 42 people have died due to rain-related incidents.

Among the worst hit are some of popular resorts around the Corbett National Park and the districts of

Senior BJP leader Power and communication lines have also snapped. The state government has ordered schools to be shut till Tuesday.(Ex.B7)

65 Died in Flood & Landslide in At least 65 people died  

Not only Dehradun-Delhi Highway, but many other State highways are closed due to landslides.

The Ganga now is running 2.3   Due to the circumstances high alert has been alarmed in   

Floods - News Roundup (24-30 September 2010)

span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">   The news earlier in the week still reports of flood fury in different parts of North India such as Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Hyderabad, Delhi, Agra. However, in the later part of the week, the flood situation seems to be easing in most parts of the North such as Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal except in Uttar Pradesh, especially western, where the situation still continues to be grim.

The later part of the news includes reports of gradual monsoon

Reports in the first part of the week indicate that floods continue to create havoc in major sections of North India such as Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, even parts of Andhra Pradesh

span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">         Floods continue to cause havoc in Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh

span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">         North India from Haryana to Bihar reels under floods: A crisis emerges

span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">         Patna, Hyderabad reel under flood fury

span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">         There have been reports  of extensive rains and flooding in Agra 

span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">         Floods continue to cause havoc in Punjab, North India

span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">         Thousands evacuated from Kanpur as Ganga breaches banks

span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">         Flood situation deteriorates in Uttar Pradesh (Ex.B8)

Dehra Dun, Sep 20: Following two days' cloudburst, heavy rain and landslides, the death toll in

16.            Such being the position, the appellants cannot be expected to take up the itinerary as per schedule. The terms of itinerary exempt the appellants from liability in case of visit to certain places of itinerary are not visited due to

The tour organizer is not responsible if any part of the itinerary is not covered due to late running of trains, strikes or political disturbances, accident, unfavourable weather and road conditions or any unforeseen circumstances like break-down of vehicles & also if the students do not adhere to the timings even at each place. 

17.            Thus, ExB6 to B9 establish the floods affecting various places in `1,000/- to each of the respondents. In this regard there has been correspondence between the parties in the shape of letters dated 13.04.2011 ExA10 to A15.

18.            In their reply in the form of emails, the second appellant informed the respondentsthat they would negotiate for refund of the amount for the places skipped, and the appellants offered to pay an amount of `1,000/- to each of the respondentsand reimburse the sum of `13,600/- incurred by the respondents  towards the lodging charges at  Shimla. The respondents had sent reply email informing the appellant no.2 that the proposal of `1,000/- per respondent besides the lodging expenses of `13,600/- in not agreeable to them. Thereafter, the respondents got issued notice through their advocate on 13.04.2011 claiming a sum of `10,000/- for each respondent besides an amount of `2,000/- towards refund of the amount to each of the respondents. In the notice the respondents referred to the attitude of the appellantsagent and admission of the appellants the inconvenience caused to the respondents as also their offer to pay `1,000/- to each of the respondents.   Paragraph 12 and 13 of the notice read as under:

12.       My clients further instructed me that receipt payments are acknowledged by you through your E-mail goodwillholidays@gmail.com and you are also given information through above E-mail stating that you will negotiate for refund of amount for missing of 13.       My clients further instructed me that my clients demanded as you are also not provided accommodation at Delhi as mentioned in your E-mail and asked to return Rs.2000/- to each student and you requested 10 and how dragooning payment on one pretext or other even though my clients contacted your mobile No.9550681741.

19.            The appellants had stated that they saved an amount of `38,000/- for the respondents and besides the aforementioned amount, they provided extra accommodation to the respondents for one night at `750/- per day at `100/- per day at New Delhi. Despite the fact that they are not liable to pay any amount they offered to pay a sum of `1,000/- to each of the students as good will gesture. In his affidavit the appellant no.2 has stated as under:

I submit that because the buses did not go to   That means a sum of Rs.38  At the same time, I spent Rs.9th October and Rs.5,200/- for Railway station drop on the early morning of 6^th October.  That means in all, a sum of rs.23  Apart from that, I provided one night extra accommodation in   I also provided food and accommodation for the entire duration of the tour.  However, the disappointment of the students, due to factors beyond control, cannot be measured in terms of money and hence as a Goodwill gesture, I had voluntarily offered to refund an amount of Rs.1 

20.            The amount directed to be refunded to the respondents should be based on balance struck between the expenditure incurred by the appellants for   one night at  Shimla and three nights at  New Delhi of the respondents including  the amount saved by the appellants and the expenses stated to have been incurred by the respondents at `1,000/- and the District Forum awarded an amount of `2,000/- to each of the respondents. Taking all these facts into consideration, this Commission is of the view that the amount awarded by the District Forum, `2,000/- per respondent has to be reduced to `1,500/- per respondent.

21.            In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified.  The appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of `1500/- to each of the respondents.  Relief granted by the District Forum as to costs is maintained.  There shall be no separate order as to costs in the appeal. Time for   four weeks.

                                                                                                                                                                           MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                  MEMBER

                                                                            Dt.19.08.2013

కె.ఎం.కె*