CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.186/2010
Dr. (Ms.) Charu Walikhanna
S-134, GF, Greater Kailash Part-2
New Delhi-110048 ……Complainant
Versus
Mr. Vivek Dewan
Director
Abhiyan Travels & Tours (I) Pvt. Ltd.
B-58, Basement
Sarvoyda Enclave
New Delhi-110017 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 06.04.10 Date of Order : 28.10.15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant being interested in the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra surfed the internet and being attracted with the offer on website of OP, she contacted him to avail his services. After visiting their office at Sarvodya Enclave, New Delhi, she booked a helicopter tour to Mount Kailash & Mansarover for 5 days Yatra. She paid an advance amount of Rs.30,000/- by cheque No.767614 drawn on ABN Amro Bank. On 20.08.09, the OP sent an email and a detailed itinerary of the Kailash Yatra which clearly stated the day to day programme including fitness requirements, clothing, food etc. It was also mentioned that they would serve basic but delicious vegetarian food, breakfast and dinner served by Nepali trained staff and pack lunch would be provided for lunchtime as there was no cook. But the passengers including the complainant were compelled to eat food in the unhygienic Nepalese dhaba in China, OP did not make proper arrangement for food, safety and arrangements for return journey. The OP charged for helicopter tour to Mount Kailash & Mansarover for 5 days for an amount of Rs.1,35,450/- including 10.3% service tax. She made the full payment in advance by cheque No.767615 drawn on ABN Amro Bank for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and cheque No. 04217788 for an amount of Rs.85,450/- drawn on HDFC bank. Before boarding the Shabtadi for Lucknow she enquired from the OP regarding visa formalities, the OP informed her that the Chinese visa was yet to be received. She specifically asked the OP whether she should defer her departure but OP replied that it might take a day extra during which they would make arrangement for her to say in Simikot, Nepal for high altitude acclimatization. She boarded the train on 01.09.09 and proceeded for Nepalganj. Being aware of the adverse weather conditions and knowing no flights were taking off from Nepalganj, OP made the Complainant to commence the journey so that she would be stuck in the clutches of the greedy OP. After spending 2nd & 3rd September 2009 in Nepalganj, arrangements were made to go by surface/road to Surkhet on 04.09.2009 and then onwards by helicopter to Simikot on 05.09.09 for which the OP charged an extra amount of almost $ 200 after reaching Simikot, Nepal. Since she was stuck in the middle of nowhere as there was no motorable road, she had no option but to shell out the money. As advised by the OP she was carrying only $200 for emergency. On 07.09.09 she alongwith four other yatris boarded the helicopter from Simikot to Hilsa and then onwards by road to Purang Taklakot, China. They wasted one day as the helicopter operator had an argument with the OP since he insisted on taking money for the return journey also from the OP. On reaching Purang Taklakot, OP instructed her to keep silence atleast for four hours for acclimatization but he had not made arrangement for anything. It was finally decided that two yatris would do the parikrama of Mount Kailash in two days. Three yatris including her did the Parikrama by jeep on 08.09.09. There was no oxygen cylinder in the jeep or access to gamow bag as promised by the OP. It was totally unethical that when all the five yatris had paid the same amount two out of five were sent for parikrama of Mount Kailash and others were made to wait. One yatri Mr. Anish Gandotra, the tour leader, and gave him $ 500 to spend during the stay in China. On the instruction of OP she and other two yatris were given only $ 200 to share while two persons kept $300. There was no reason for this discrimination since all the five passengers had paid the same amount for the tour. On 09.09.09 when she rang the OP regarding the lack of arrangements and coordination his behavior was rough and he misbehaved. On 10.10.09 weather was uncertain and the visas of yatris were going to expire; the guide stated that they might have to re-route their exit by road to Kathmandu which was a four day journey and they would have to shift out from the guest house as there was no booking after that. They requested the OP to expedite the re-route visa. All the expenses on international calls were borne by them. On 11.09.09 miraculously the weather cleared and she caught the third helicopter flight from Hilsa to Simikot, the flight had been prepaid. The first two flights were missed because the OP had specifically instructed not to do immigration formalities until the helicopter was taking off from Simikot. The helicopter took 45 minutes to reach Hilsa and did not wait there even for 5 minutes. Whereas, the Chinese immigration formalities, drive to Hilsa, Nepal boarder immigration formalities and walk to helipad took almost about 50 minutes. The OP had given all false information in itinerary as there was no time to visit any temple. They waited for the helicopter as the two yatris reached late. When they were boarding the helicopter the tour operator Mr. Chamba stopped them by saying that travel agent Mr. Vivek Dewan had not paid the fare. The OP’s man Mr. Tenzin of Simikot asked her to shell out $1000 to board the flight though she had already made all the payments in advance to the OP; being stuck in the middle of nowhere and desperate to return, after negotiations the operator agreed to accept $870 ($ 174 per person). On reaching Surkhet Airport again as there was no arrangement for onward journey to Nepalganj they had to pay and arrange the same on their own. Before reaching Batika Hotel, Nepalganj she rang the OP office for assistance but they said that the person Mr. Vivek Dewan who had made the arrangement was in Korea. She also rang him in Korea and explained the condition. He stated that he would make reimbursement. There was no arrangement for lunch in Batika, Nepalganj. She rang Mr. Sandeep at Delhi office of OP that she was calling taxi who had dropped her to Nepalganj for return to Lucknow. The taxi also demanded money. The OP did not agree to pay for the taxi. Infact five yatris had come from Lucknow in two taxis but on their return all squeezed into one taxi. It appears that OP all along had intention to cheat yatris and never intended to provide proper services. The OP assured them that they would assist her internet booking of air/train ticket for return journey from Lucknow to Delhi. She had made her own booking and that of other two yatris senior citizens running around 11 p.m. at night in Lucknow. On return to Delhi, she made numerous calls but OP showed no remorse nor there was any word of apology, on the contrary he was discourteous, rude and said that he owed no compensation as they should be grateful to him for the yatra. She also sent notice to the OP vide email dated 27.10.09; he responded vide email dated 01.11.09 replying instead of being apologetic used irrelevant excuses and blamed the Chinese who were on the contrary very cooperative and apologetic. Hence pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP the Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OP to refund the amount paid by the Complainant to the tune of $ 174 reimbursement of helicopter fare, surface fare of Rs.2500/- fare from Surkhet to Nepalganj and Rs.8,000/- as international call mobile bill charges and misc. charges.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to her.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation.
In the written statement OP has stated that unlike other luxurious tours it was an extreme high altitude pilgrimage journey which was 75% dependant upon the nature or act of God. There was every likelihood of various casualties due to extreme high altitude, lack of oxygen, nervousness, blood pressure problem, extreme cold sickness etc. In this journey nothing had happened as such and the weather also remained good to a great extent to complete the journey though six days delayed. Whatever deviation and aberration occurred, those are enevitable and beyond the control of OP. She had agreed to the terms and conditions and signed the agreement on 06.08.09. Inspite having all the arrangement for food she preferred to eat outside food. He had not received any complaint from the other members of the group in respect of the food. OP has 16 years of experience of the same journey. Whatever incident had happened they were mentioned in the itinerary and other supplied information and signed by her. She accepted all unforeseen situations and incidents which could occur in the journey and beyond the control of OP. She had opted herself for going even to return journey by helicopter and hence she had to pay the difference of amount; there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP. Due to weather condition the programme of journey was extended for 6 days and they had to spend Rs.36,000/- extra for each individual at the rate of Rs.6000/- per day per head. Hence, she is liable to pay the sum of Rs.36,000/- to them with interest @ 18% per annum. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost and to direct the Complainant to pay a sum of Rs.36,000/- alognwith interest @ 18% per annum to the OP .
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed her affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Vivek Diwan, Director of OP has been filed in evidence.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
We straightway come to the question, whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for?
It is an admitted fact of the parties that the Complainant had signed the contract terms and conditions with the OP for journey to Mansarovar and Kailash yatra. Due to bad weather the journey was extended for six days and itinerary had to be changed. The yatra was completed within 11 days in place of 5 days. Annexure-I is the copy of itinerary. Annexure-II is the copy of invoice dated 28.08.09 issued to the Complainant for Rs.1,35,450/- towards cost of being charged for helicopter tour to Mt. Kailash & Mansarover for 5 days programme.
It transpires that the Complainant has not filed any documentary proof in respect of deficiency in service on the part of OP. The itinerary was changed and the tour was extended from 5 days to 11 days due to bad weather and other conditions and OP cannot be held liable for such acts which were certainly beyond the control of OP. Therefore the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Therefore we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 28.10.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
28.10.2015
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
